HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: SOH Talks & Ideas

Naomi Klein: Capitalism and the Climate, Festival of Dangerous Ideas 2015

514 ratings | 53429 views
Is Capitalism now at war with our planet? The Festival of Dangerous Ideas (FODI) is an annual event that brings leading thinkers and culture creators from around the world to the Sydney Opera House stages and online to discuss and debate the important ideas of our time. 5& 6 Sept, Sydney Opera House. Buy tickets and view the full line-up of speakers, talks and info here: http://fodi.sydneyoperahouse.com/tickets/ http://sydneyoperahouse.com/ideas Subscribe and find more videos from Ideas at the House: http://www.youtube.com/ideasatthehouse Get a new talk every week on our podcast: Audio - https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/sydney-opera-house-ideas-at/id640445035 Video - https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/sydney-opera-house-ideas-at/id640444896 Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/IdeasAtTheHouse Twitter - https://twitter.com/ideasatthehouse
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (101)
Twenty Faces (2 years ago)
Lol what nonsense.
Hannes H. (2 years ago)
why does youtube or google not suggest naomi klein when you start typing her name? If you type naomi k it suggests like ten people i have never heard of before but if you type naomi kl there are no suggestions anymore.
Roseann D (2 years ago)
I read Shock Doctrine which was a good start on the journey of WTF is wrong with our world but investigating further the problem and curse that afflicts all nations is ... Never mentioned by Klein? Is she one of them or just afraid to say? They allow you to say whatever as long as you don't peel back the final layer of the onion! As did JFK, MLK , Malcom X.....She does mention some of the evils behind the curtain such as Milton Freedman but stops short of the total explanation.
Object (2 years ago)
She has been proved absolutely wrong on everything. Why anyone listens to her nonsense is breathtaking. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Her letter to President Chavez while she described Friedmans principles applied to Chile were evil and destructive. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... August 12, 2004 Dear President Chavez,.............................................................................................................................................................. We are writing to express our solidarity during this important moment in Venezuela’s history. It is our hope and expectation that, on August 15, you will once again win an electoral mandate from the Venezuelan people to be their president. The world knows that you are achieving something remarkable in Venezuela: you are investing your country’s vast oil wealth in ways that benefit everyone, not just small minority of well-connected elites. Over the last year your government’s literacy campaign taught one million Venezuelans to read. And today, millions of others are benefiting from the governments investment in job training, small businesses and health care. We are disturbed by our own government’s interference in your internal affairs. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a group funded by the U.S. Congress, has financed radical opposition leaders in their efforts to cut short your term. Some of the individuals funded by the NED participated in the April 2002 coup attempt against you. Polling done by both the Venezuelan government and its opposition shows that you will defeat the recall referendum on August 15. We have every expectation that on August 16 Venezuelan relations with the U.S. government will begin to improve. We are committed to doing what we can, as U.S. citizens, to heal those relationships and encourage Congress and the White House to see Venezuela not only as a model democracy but also as a model of how a country’s oil wealth can be used to benefit all of its people. Sincerely, .................................................................................................................................................................................................... Reverend Jesse Jackson................ Congressman Dennis Kucinich..................... Dr. Howard Zinn................... Edward Asner.......................... Dr. Saul Landau...................................................... Naomi Klein!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......... Doug Henwood........................................ Dr. Blase Bonpane............................. Liza Featherstone...................................................................................................................................................................... What now Naomi?...................................................................................................................................................................................... Venezuela Now Faces Imminent Famine from the failed policies of your favourite Socialist
Roseann D (2 years ago)
Yea because Cheves is dead! That was the plan, he had to die so the oil could be privatized
Jennifer Millward (2 years ago)
A daisy chain around this world...wished children of the 1950s by sydney harbour .From the cave of our forebears; our prayers our minds-eyes ...kindly dreamed...(in between the devastating racism.......) A tucked-in little (Islander)Waverton church congregation sang sweetest harmonies...)...Naomi's strident perceptions are a fine dreaming...essential listening ...HEAR that ....choir ..
fallingintime (2 years ago)
perhaps a bit politically correct, but she means well and she is absolutely right about everything.
Franklin Michael (2 years ago)
She didn't explain why capitalism is causing climate change, she said what some big corporations are doing, but that's not because of capitalism, a communist country could have sent people to destroy islands too, writhing a capitalist system we can still fix it, but we have to do some actuall work we can't just say we want to stop climate change and then keep on doing everything the same, let's figure out what companies do these kind of things and stop buying from them and start buying from environmentally conscious companies, and sending letters to companies saying you stopped buying from them because they don't care about the environment. If one person does it it doesn't work, if a third of us do it then the companies will start looking for sustainable ways of doing things to get back the lost customers, or go bankrupt if they'r whole system is based on an unsustainable idea.
Jam Nana (2 years ago)
I wouldn't consider myself either, I make ethical purchase choices where I can afford it but rarely at a drastic cost to my own personal comfort. I enjoy meat a lot.
Franklin Michael (2 years ago)
+Jamie Fong Are you a minimalist or are you 0 waste? Do you eat meat? Could you live in a smaller apartment or a tiny house? I know going vegan sounds like it's making a change, but it's a very minimal change, we need something more drastic. What do you do to help as a group and not appealing to individuals? I'm not saying you don't Im saying I didn't get what your wrote.
Jam Nana (2 years ago)
Admire your sense of personal responsibility and choice to help the environment. But for better or worse I land on the other end of the spectrum where I place more importance on fundraising and campaigns which try to make a systemic change as opposed to trying to appeal to people individually to make the right choices. Yes, I know what minimalism and 0 waste is but 60% of my pay already goes to rent, and 3/4 of the remaining money goes towards food. At the moment I definitely can't afford to pay extra for ethical luxury food.  The struggle to fight climate change requires a broad church and as long as people can agree on a goal, it can't be a bad thing even if we disagree on the methods.
Franklin Michael (2 years ago)
+Jamie Fong You can afford to pay 5 times more for meat if you save by being a minimalist, with the added benefit of promoting the production of good meat and saving resources. Do you know what minimalism and 0 waste is?
Franklin Michael (2 years ago)
+Jamie Fong If you really want to help the environment, go minimalist, and 0 waste, that's a way to really help the environment not vegan, Im already in the process of becoming a minimalist, 0 waste is much harder. I think that vegans came up with a good way to promote their mentality but I strongly disagree with it, meat is a good thing in my opinion, specially wild meat, confinement meat on the other hand is bad in my opinion, for your health and it's inhumane to keep animals in those conditions.
Panoptic Emu (2 years ago)
Haha. To paraphrase her answer to the second question: "If you ever have doubts or see inconsistencies in my views, get into a huge group of people who agree with me." ?????? Only 2 reasons for that. 1) peer pressure 2) when you are alone, you have a chance to THINK. If you are so trusting in the truth of your ideas, why do you try to prevent people from thinking about it? A huge talk explaining nothing and using absolutely no evidence. I'm not arguing against Naomi, I just want to point out the emptiness of this conference.
Eleanor (3 years ago)
I find it utterly amazing that so many people, like the guy at 45:20, attribute technological or quality-of-life advances to capitalism. We innovate because that's what humans do, and we do it IN SPITE OF capitalism. Medical studies are frequently funded BY US. We have national health services IN SPITE OF capitalism. We have workplace protections IN SPITE OF capitalism. From time to time, we have wages that we can live on IN SPITE OF capitalism. Our ancestors demanded these CONCESSIONS from capitalism. How can anyone be so blind?
mark krul (3 years ago)
Ah yes another marxist who is spreading the same poison that killed almost 100 million people last century. And who are the empty headed people that imbibe this poison? People who are malcontents, failing in their own lives they are urged to take out their anger on a system called capitalism, not realizing that if they are successful at building a new soviet union they will be the ones being exterminated in the camps.
mchlbk (2 years ago)
+mark krul Dude, she's not a marxist. Not even liberal.
Mary Tang (3 years ago)
I hate it when the person introducing the speaker goes on and on....please, let the speaker speak!!!!!!
Hannah Izzard (3 years ago)
Dude at 41:09 :/
olli tuovinen (3 years ago)
Bill Hampton (3 years ago)
Nice crowd
Hrad Records (3 years ago)
yes it is
vanguardau (3 years ago)
Naomi is the real deal, one of the great minds and researchers of our time. I class The Shock Doctrine one of the most important books on how the world really works, I'm currently reading the book she's talking about here-again a must read for anyone who cares about our future. I  hope she's invited back to Australia many times in the future-we really do need a movement similar to the civil rights movement of the sixties and Naomi is ideally place to be in the vanguard of that movement.
pistolen87 (3 years ago)
I still don't know how the changes she talks about can be implemented without letting go of personal freedom and implementing a more authoritarian society.
Tighe Claire (3 years ago)
Truly remarkable!
Olivia Marie (3 years ago)
Loved this talk!!! super super inspiring !!!
Yuri muckraker (3 years ago)
great talk however I was very dismayed that in Naomi Klein's most recent interview with her husband the former CBC and Al Jazeera English journalist 'Avi Lewis' that she didn't talk about how the biggest threat to climate change isn't the fossil fuel industry but our consumption of meat and how our food is processed and extending her compassionate humanity to animals. while I applaud her champinoning the cause of indigenous people in her home country of Canada and elsewhere and calling out the NDP for moving to the centre (when its really the liberals,greens and conservatives) how she didn't talk about how deadly our meat consumption is, and when she talks about the media again, its "bad apple" Murdoch as opposed to the whole rotten corporate/public media system that continues the bogus debate on whether climate change is real or man made is quite sobering. Especially because Johan Hari Klein's friend was a Blair supporter, and warmonger who smeared Chomsky, Chris Atkins, and made snide remarks of John Pilger only to steal their ideas, and now act as if he opposed the Iraq War all along and Klein writes for the Guardian a corporate media paper that endorses war,neo-liberalism, and sincere leaders like Jeremy corbyn.  I hope Naomi Klein gets the chance to watch the alternative inconvenient truth on climate change the documentaries "Meat the Truth" and "Cowspiracy" and all who are interested should check out the British media critic site Media Lens whose editors are David Cromwell and David Edwards and get their books "Guardians of Power: the Myth of the Liberal Media and Newspeaks in the 21st Century, and Private Planet by David Cromwell. this article they did on Naomi Klein and others is tremendous.
Yuri muckraker (3 years ago)
+Bob Rolander well thank you first off, and i'm glad someone took the time to read my comments and the Media Lens article, you can contact the editors via e-mail, facebook even, they are quite generous towards responding to their readers and accept challenges. however when it comes to imperial wars, war on whistleblowers, and climate change we need to discuss the corporate media, how it limits our political imagination, stifles debate, and acts as an extension of rapacious government/corporate power. and again while its great to attack Murdoch or the murdochs of the world, we are doing a disservice to ourselves and the lives of countless if we don't talk about the observer,the guardian, the bbc, abc, tv nz, itv, channel 4, cbc, ctv all who are part of the system that even when talking of climate change only discuss the fossil fuel industry and not the meat and palm oil industry. and many green groups as Naomi klein exposed in her book have been engaging in self-censorship and are showing insincerity when they accept money from the very groups they are decrying. much like how can liberals be outraged on bush policies but be silent when Obama continues them or when Clinton both bill and Hilary also have a neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. and sadly the failure of the green movement to not attack the corporate media or address how the way we consume meat is even more deadlier then all the mining,logging,burning of coal and oil means that the fight for our very existence is already in peril. and yes I don't deny the guardian has some honorable exceptions as you just mention glenn greenwald who exposed and continues to expose the corruption of the NSA and his defense of his source snowden, but you mentioned WikiLeaks. well the guardian threw Julian Assange under the bus soon after he collaborated with them in exposing the systemic war crimes the US-UK goverments and their allies commited in Iraq. many of them including owen jones and nick davies so often praised in the media have strongly called for Assange to be investigated and described him as reckless when they were the very people who mainly just regurgitated stuff they read on WikiLeaks. this is typical of the guardian a paper who often supports the corrupt humanitarian intervention, has spiked stories, fired the likes of people like nafeez ahmed, has cotiniously smeared Jeremy corbyn, was a huge supported of blair both for his neoliberal polcies and his imperial policies and then they try to act their anti-Murdoch and they've been as pitiful in their climate change reports by having advertising revenue from the airplane, fossil fuel, and meat industry. all i'm saying is the corporate media and the lesser of evils such as the guardian and others are part of the problem. and its not doing the climate justice and human rights movement any good by staying silent on those who are part of the problem, not the solution to it. much like how democrat supporters refuse to distance themselves from the cult of Clinton-Obama, and labor with the Blairites,browns of the world. after all its them that divide and conquer.
Bob Rolander (3 years ago)
+Yuri muckraker I have read your concern, and I also read the extensive article of Media Lens. You & Media Lens have some good points. But still we have to overcome such media related issues to divide us even further. *Both* issues are important to fight Climate Change. *Meat **_and_** Oil* are harmful not only to the Climate of the Earth, but also to the Climate of peace & politics. It seems to me that the media of the internet has done it's harm without any economic pressure: It has harmed our ability to overcome polarization. It has turned us all into autistic trolls, who only see their own point and agenda. I sometimes think, maybe we should even be more inclusive and welcome those who worry about *Chemtrails.* I've reached out to them many times, only to get blocked on their sites for even mentioning CO2. Strange. Let's *reunite* our efforts! At least in our blogs & comment spaces. Because _here_ we cannot blame coporate media for playing the game of Divide & Conquer. Here we seem to do that all by ourselves... And The Guardian may be rotton in many aspects. But they are still one of the very, very few media outlets that even talk to people like Julian Asange, Edward Snowden & Naomi Klein. *In general maybe we should stop bashing each other for not being 100% holy saints.* Let's leave that to religion please.
Yuri muckraker (3 years ago)
+Yuri muckraker this is the article.  http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2011/626-ten-years-of-media-lens-operation-rheinuebung.html
oldnotweak (3 years ago)
don't fuck with capitalism. its the best system we have ever had.
Alex Skovranov (3 years ago)
Naomi Klein - I have a label for the solution system replacing capitalism - It's called the Venus Project. You are already advocating their economic model, whether you know it or not, called Resource-based Economy. Judging by you talk here, that is.
dvmovie (3 years ago)
I love Naomi Klein, but her solutions are all framed within our current system. Can't make those changes from here. Have to get rid of the profit motive, and corporations and banks... and MONEY. Look into a resource based economy, and Ubuntu Contributionism for starters. There are lots of organizations out there now that understand what our 21st Century technology makes possible: A new system that puts our public health and environmental sustainability as the primary goals
Aditya Narayan (3 years ago)
Naomi Rocks.Period.
Sarah Lattanzi (3 years ago)
As you are moved, you move us. Thank you Naomi.
Peter Jolliffe (3 years ago)
we need to change to the Non monetary. Natural Law resource based economic system being advocated by the fast growing numbers of people supporting the Venus project and the Zeitgeist movement.....if the human race is to survive.
Carlos Spicyweiner (3 years ago)
End capitalism now, or humans will always be product.
Greg Dinunzi (3 years ago)
Great lecture. Thank you.
Turtleproof (3 years ago)
The result of capitalism is always the same: these are not people or citizens, they are units of labor and consumers, thus it is okay to use slave labor and place them into deathly unsafe factories to make things for pennies and sell them for dozens of times the value of the product.
Virus Alex (3 years ago)
Another jewish piece of shit trying to undermine white people whith bullshit like humanity of others crap but israel is a ethno state who doesnt allow afrikan imigration but wants open borders in europe and usa
MASSA GRABBER (3 years ago)
Anthropogenic climate change ala the IPCC (97% of climate scientists of no moral content & even less science) vs the all pervasive context of a sun driven but not generously funded but empirically proven through prognostication (confirmation bias) such as scientific values noted on Mars & Venus are made mute by the libtard audience of woowoo breathing, loud guffaws & a relentless crowd sourcing of righteous indignation. Hooray for the libtard. If you can get off your stupid asses to assess the geo engineering (climate change by another anthropoid) driven model of absolute purpose to control the climate since the stated goal of 1997 you would probably just shut down or up but certainly do nothing. You won't be kicking the ass of those which bring you trouble because pillow sitting is easier. Hail the libtard plus. Hail to the Jesuit Pope Hail to Crown Hail to Usury which drives it all.
adt3030 (3 years ago)
why does she never mention the industrial livestock production industry? if she is trying to get real, then she should step up to the fact.
adt3030 (3 years ago)
true. i hear she has brushed it of as being too much to ask from people. time to blow my horn but not sure what else i can add to conversation that Cowspiracy didn't say.
Left Coast Gal (3 years ago)
Maybe that is your subject to speak out on. Do it! Do not call her out for what she does not do, she is one human taking on so much!
Kelsey Johnson (3 years ago)
I agree with a lot of her ideas but I wish some of these speakers would point out there own hypocrisy. Save us the white guilt. How were her glasses, make up, cloths, the plane she came there on, the books she sells are all made? Fueled by oil of course. I'll buy an electric truck as as it's affordable. We need to invest in clean energy and local foods. All that is good. I think she misses some of the reality of taking care of all the refugees in the world. Or the fact that humans take over each other. Throwing money at the Native populations is a disaster. They have no self worth. If we want equality we should treat everyone the same. I hope we can help the all refugees but I just don't know how plausible it is.
R M. (7 months ago)
you can advocate for changing the system while still needing to be a part of the system until it changes. it's not like anybody can survive outside capitalism currently. also material products can still be made and transported without oil in the future, the same as they were made and transported without oil before oil started to be used for energy.
raulibiza1 (3 years ago)
Humans buy and sell among them, parts of Planet Earth, all the time. It is a collective madness that goes againts Life, Life that is free for all living beings, except for greedy "madkind"
George Applegate (3 years ago)
Just for some balance... She says the island is threatened by climate change. Does she mean sea level rise? The sea level at Nauru is stable or possibly falling - tide gauges there go back to 1975 and don't show even the global sea level rise. Islands with coral mountains, hundreds of feet high, historically have been in geologic uplift, which at this point appears roughly to cancel the effect of sea level rise. The people of Nauru have benefited from phosphate mining. Their population has increased by a factor of five and Nauruans pay no income tax. They are the best fed people on the planet, given that they are the most obese. This is a case of the indigenous people profiting from exploitation of their resources, much like Saudi Arabia. Now that the resources are gone, they must face the prospect of earning their own way. Germany has increased its green energy with the creation of 400,000 new jobs. This has resulted in a tripling of electricity costs compared to it non-green neighbors. These new jobs are thus simply makework jobs that produce nothing new, just the energy that was already being produced more cheaply with fossil fuels, while raising energy prices to pay all these workers. Germany's economy has thus been significantly weakened. Green energy is equivalent to banning the use of combine harvesters, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs to harvest crops by hand, while tripling the price of food. Who would this benefit? The wealth of the nation is measured by how much is produced per capita, and that does not increase through wealth redistribution.
George Applegate (3 years ago)
+Barney Gumble I don't think you understood what I wrote. "sea level rise theories"? Research the geology of how coral atolls form from sinking volcanoes. Activists claim this is a new phenomenon but the fact that atolls are sinking has been known since Darwin's time.
Barney Gumble (3 years ago)
+George Applegate of course, near the end of slavery in the USA, the southern slaveowners had argued that the slaves were better treated nowadays; they weren't killed as often, they were better fed, raped less often. The slaveowners argued that freeing them would actually make their lives worse, as they would have to obey their capitalist masters and be slaves to another master (which... sadly has some validity as we're all wage-slaves now). You're essentially saying the same thing. Plus your sea level rise theories are ridiculous. I mean, come on. You going to tell us the temperature is rising on the planet because of sun flares or whatever bs argument you invent to prove your point?
FretboardFrenzy (3 years ago)
+Ievgen Goichuk the rising costs of energy and everything that depends on it affect first and foremost the poor.
Ievgen Goichuk (3 years ago)
+George Applegate Wealth of the nation might not be of the most importance to you, when you struggle to scrape money for basic things.
tigers67and69er (3 years ago)
Poor girl she believes everything the media has fed her and continues to feed everyone each day with their fear based mind control...Australian Roundtable Podcast...you tube.
shooshoojoon4 (3 years ago)
Let her be heard and action taken before we destroy all of life!
Kate Hook (3 years ago)
Everyone in the world needs to hear what Naomi has to say.
sonicspring (3 years ago)
Brilliant. I am full of gratitude for what Naomi is doing.
d nessels (3 years ago)
Julie Dowling (3 years ago)
They're shutting down over 170+ First nation communities in regional & remote WA and a lot of those communities protect the environment because culture is maintained there. What makes me angry is that our people there know about renewable resources. In Great Turtle Island (Canada) First nation people contribute $32 Billion to the economy and that's WITH apparent autonomous land rights which helps them make revenue from renewable resources too. Can People in 'Australia' see the bigger picture or are the majority sheeple just racist yobbo's watching Rupert Murdoch run the show?
coolshithey (3 years ago)
+Michael Bk to the extent that the community dysfunction you're talking about is real (and there's big questions about the veracity of lots of the claims made about Aboriginal communities, given that the allegations of widespread child abuse which precipitated the NT intervention have subsequently been found to be fabricated, and given that Aboriginal people are twice as likely to be teetotal as mainstream Australia), shutting down communities and forcing people into slums in regional centres is not the solution.
M B (3 years ago)
+Julie Dowling Stop pretending those 'communities' are some beacon of culture or something like that. In reality they are full of drugs, alcohol and violence.
Edward Black (3 years ago)
Naomi Klein for Prime Minister of Canada -- and Australia....
Bob Rolander (3 years ago)
+Edward Black *Why so apologetic about liberty? Freedom is a good thing!*
Edward Black (3 years ago)
She isn't a liberal.
JollYYman (3 years ago)
+Christine Trzcinski No, I think he just doesn't like her ideas. IMO, Mrs. Klein is so fake. Typical liberal.
Bob Rolander (3 years ago)
+Edward Black *Bernie Sanders for president of the USA.*
Christine Trzcinski (3 years ago)
+John Howard woman problem?
Studio Solutions (3 years ago)
Maybe she can have quick word with the Arab states about not taking in any refugees at all?
Sufi Ch (3 years ago)
25% of Lebanon's population is refugees. Jordan has taken in millions. The only Arab countries which have not taken any refugees are close US allies. The west quibbles over a few thousand refugees whereas all surrounding countries where the west has waged war have done their part in taking in refugees. Pakistan has the largest refugee population in the world due to American war on terror, numbering more than 6 million.
Mike Ballard (3 years ago)
The 'value' of human beings is the surplus value they can produce for capitalists to appropriate in exchange for wages. This is the reality of the word 'value' under the rule of Capital. Capital is produced by employing wage labour. Without workers producing wealth in exchange for the market price of their skills, there would be no Capital. The 'immense pile of filth' that the Pope refers to, is an immense accumulation of commodities for sale in the marketplace of commodities with a view to profit. If you're interested in how the wage system actually works and how we can actually abolish it, listen what Karl Marx had to say about it in a speech he gave to workers in 1865. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMHjn6r9N5s Revolution is a change in the mode of production based on a change in social relations. Revolution has nothing to do with the violence or peacefulness of societal change. Revolution is not a tactic. A cooperative commonwealth (aka socialism and communism) is the strategic goal of revolutionaries in the modern age. Because we human beings make history, if we're not class conscious enough to demand and organise: the abolition of the wage system; common ownership of the social product of labour, with production based on use (as opposed to commodity exchange), there will be no revolution. At best, those workers actively participating in the class struggle will achieve a continual leftist reform of the capitalist mode of production or perhaps another form of State capitalist production of commodities. [As Marx observes in CAPITAL Volume I, chapter one: "Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself."] At worst, humanity will step backwards into harsher forms of dictatorship under dogmatic, sadistic rulers, out of fear of realising their own freedom and the false notion that they can best survive by embracing the authority of those they find already in established positions of political power over the majority. In this day and age, achieving more freedom on a societal level lies in the direction of embracing: common ownership of the social product of labour; production for use and need; distribution of collectively produced wealth based on labour time (not the mystifications associated with commodified sale); abolition of wage labour (wage-labour iscommodified sale); a classless association of free producers (not a class dominated political State). These are the positions I take in relation to the question of revolution for what I'm talking about is a social revolution, not merely a political revolution where one class replaces another as ruling class of a political State. Again, my position on revolution has nothing in common with notions about violence, random or otherwise. Nor does it have anything to do with small minorities bravely seizing the State and exercising political power over the majority. I won't become another Blanquist who thinks a tiny core of activists and revolutionaries are all that is needed to effect the most profound change in history: social revolution from class divided society to a classless, free association of producers. Learn this from historical experience: Without the corresponding need for majority support, any political project based on Blanquist tactics and strategy has always ended in the maintenance of class domination, not its sublation. Class rule is the existential condition individuals find themselves under even within a capitalist democracy and its political State. The aim of a revolution is to extend democracy beyond these limitations and can only be achieved by a conscious classwide organisation of democracy within the womb of capitalist class rule. Under the conditions where producers are organised as a class of wage-slaves by employers to produce wealth for the capitalist class, there is little in the way of democratic practice in society. A free association of producers which is capable of organising as a class,as the overwhelming majority of the population, to take, hold and operate the means of production for themselves would also be quite capable of defending itself, as an organised, classless, Stateless society, from attack from reactionary forces attempting to preserve the condition of wage-slavery over the majority. A classless, grassroots-democratic governing structure is not a political State. Face it, most capitalists and landlords would never take up arms against the majority of a population, class consciously organised and in control of both the means of production and their own collective product of labour. Outside of a few psychopaths, most of our old rulers would just put in their four hours or less labour time like the rest of us and resign themselves to lives without servile politicians and other lackeys to enforce their political power over us as they do nowadays. Communism means individualism. Not narrow individualism, the 'hooray for me, devil take the hindmost' individualism. Capitalist or narrow individualism is based on a negative dynamic for freedom: My freedom is your un-freedom. We need communist individualism, an individualism firmly based on the principle of equal political power amongst all men and women. Nobody should have more political power than anyone else in a classless association of free producers. This principle, consciously enforced by the association of free producers themselves in a spirit of solidarity will ensure that people attempting to impose political power over others are shunned by consensus, up to and including exclusion from the society for periods of time. "Thus things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence. This appropriation is first determined by the object to be appropriated, the productive forces, which have been developed to a totality and which only exist within a universal intercourse. From this aspect alone, therefore, this appropriation must have a universal character corresponding to the productive forces and the intercourse. "The appropriation of these forces is itself nothing more than the development of the *individual capacities* corresponding to the material instruments of production. The appropriation of a totality of instruments of production is, for this very reason, the development of a totality of capacities in the *individuals* themselves." from THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY Again, I was inspired by Marx's notion of communism. I was not attracted to Lenin's nor his followers notions of socialism. Unlike Marx, Lenin, his followers and other ordinary non-leninist social democrats (for example: those in the Social Democratic Party of Germany) all these self-described socialists and communists continually make the case that socialism and communism are different systems. Marx and Engels made the case that socialism and communism were interchangeable terms identifying the same system: a classless society where production would be based on creating use-values with distribution taking place on the basis of the socially necessary labour time put into the creation of total wealth in society. In other words, commodity production would cease in a communist organisation of society. I'm really not that interested in living in a State capitalist society, a society where wage-labour and commodity production continues nor, am I interested in promoting any of the existing State capitalist societies. My position is that you'll never, 'implement a new society' or 'find ecologically-sustainable solutions' without changing the way social relations are arranged and you can't do that without abolishing wage labour and instituting a mode of production based on what humans find to be useful (for example, it is useful not to destroy the Earth with climate changing technology), as opposed to marketing commodities for sale as is the case within the capitalist matrix of market wage-slavery. Anything less than changing the mode of production, is merely another proposal for the reform of the capitalist mode of production, the mode of production based directly on wage-labour. To be sure, liberal reform is preferable to conservative reform; but reforms do not overturn the set of social relations which result in the vast majority of the population having little or no political power over their own conditions of existence including the enormous quantity of wealth they produce: Wealth which politically empowers ruling classes to control government and the laws we are all supposedly equal under. I also think that socialism can only come from a conscious act/praxis (the unity of theory and practice) of the workers themselves organised as a class for themselves. Thus, socialist praxis precludes the need for 'goons' or other monsters, like secret police or for that matter for ruling elites. In a classless, democratic society, politically equal human beings can discuss the issues which surround the distribution the product of their collective labour. As for myself, I prefer socially necessary labour time as a transparent solution for handling distribution and contribution in a newly created communist society and that's where my vote goes for the moment. Commodity production and wage-labour fetishise the individual's social relations within the community of producers. We see ourselves as workers or 'middle class' 'worth' so and so much money. Worth is tied up and mystified with sale: I fetch this and so price on the labour market whereas Joe Blow only gets this much in wages at his job. Alienation of each from each becomes the rule of everyday life. The reality is that we all participate in a giant division of labour to produce the wealth of society and that if one part in the division of labour stops, say through a strike, the other parts suffer which can even lead to a breakdown of society. This reality is forgotten in the narrow indvidualists' fetishised rush to keep their own jobs in the rat race and impress their masters, their employers, and perhaps get a rise in pay in recognition of subaltern obedience. Meanwhile, in spite of all our supplications, mutual throat cutting (in our negative pursuit of freedom) and efforts at liberal reform, the social relation of Capital reproduces the exploitation inherent in the wage system with 10% of the population owning and controlling 88% of the wealth which 90% of the population produces.Along with the unequal distribution of wealth, goes a similar UNEQUAL share of political power in capitalist democracies. Of course, in a communist democracy 100% of the wealth is owned and controlled by 100% of the people. In such a classless society, where labour time is obvious and open, everyone can see that they put in so an so much time into the creation of the social store of goods and services and that they are entitled to withdraw what they've put in from their own communal store of wealth. The specifics of how this is accomplished is left to the free association of producers deliberating at that time, in other words the society of that time. Unfortunately, there are no such societies today. This is what Marx meant when he quipped that he wasn't about making up recipes for the cook shops of the future as a Utopian Socialist might. The details are left up to the democratic organisation of the people who make the revolutionary change in the mode of production. For instance, a society-wide free association of producers decides how much labour time to deduct from the individual producer's time share in the social store in order to maintain and develop the means of production and social infrastructure. These formulas are not made up in advance of the functioning communist society by self-appointed vanguards. The concrete knowledge that one contributes, one is actually the producer of society, is very important to philosophical basis of the socialist mode of production and distribution. The subject-object relation is finally put right-side up in a classless society and this can only be done in a society based on the principle that the product belongs to the producer. Despite the propaganda of the various rulers in the history of class societies, neither kings nor slave masters nor captains of industry have created the wealth of society. Wealth is produced at the grassroots of class society, no matter what sort of class society is under examination. There is nothing against human nature in this principle. Before class societies began to appear some ten thousand years ago, our ancestors associated freely on the basis of kinship, without class division between haves and have not. They enjoyed a direct social relation with each other and held the collective product of their labour in common. This went on for tens of thousands of years. To be sure, class societies were historically necessary to achieve the level of wealth production required to create the potential for modern socialism's level offree-time from necessary labour. But, class societies have reached an historical point where they have become fetters on the greater freedom possible in the here and now and have even become dangerous to the survival of the human race. Again, I'm for* common ownership* of the collective product of labour. Private ownership is of personal goods is fine and in keeping with the individualism of communism e.g. one's home, one's garden, one's shovel, one's vehicle. Private ownership of nature is out of the question. The Earth is not a commodity. One does not own land or the means of production or cities in a classless society. One uses the land one's home is on. One uses the means of production in combination with other producers to create wealth and use that wealth for needs. These collective products of labour are owned socially: They are not sold. Labour time vouchers demystify our relation with what we produce. They are not traded on markets. They are not money. They are not accumulated and passed down in wills; neither is the land we used while we live. How much labour time is in a dollar or a pound or a euro? Of course, money is a commodified, mystified abstraction. How much labour time is in a voucher which says one hour of labour time? This relation is transparent. How much labour time is in a can of tuna, a house, a car, a bottle of beer? Not many know. They do know how what the prices of various commodities are, including their skills. Skills are commodities in the market for wage-slaves thus, our labour time is estranged in our minds from each other in the division of labour and further, from the total product of labour. And where does this put us but into a mode of selfish, narrowly individualist thinking where each is potentially at the competitive throat of the other in the labour market. As for slackers in a classless society, they can go off and live on their own as far as I am concerned. I doubt whether many people would be averse to shunning them. I certainly wouldn't be averse to it. Of course, some may feel guilt ridden enough to continue to support them through their own charity. Go ahead. However, my view is that if we don't do our bit, the revolution will never be made. Solidarity is about doing your bit to get a free society going. Scabs and slackers act the role of thieves within the working class movement for freedom from wage-slavery and for social ownership of the common product of labour. A four hour day max is all we need put in, probably a whole lot less. Four hours or less, shouldn't be a problem for anyone, unless they're sick or too young or too old and of course, solidarity with those members of society is a given. A classless society cares for its own. As with everything else, it takes nothing but our labour time in solidarity and love: There are no prices. Production is carried on for use and need and with a view toward, 'living in harmony with the Earth.'
George Applegate (3 years ago)
+People Before Profit Sligo Please cite the basis for this claim.
+George Applegate 20,000 people die of starvation everyday because of capitalist ideology.
John Denison (3 years ago)
Articulate and to the point, much appreciated. 
George Applegate (3 years ago)
+John Denison I agree that capitalism no longer works as it once did. But this is not because capitalism has changed, but because a large and powerful government has grown up around it, creating perverse incentives. In its simplest form, capitalism is simply a system for exchanging value between those best able to produce each type of good. The blacksmith is best at making plowshares, and the farmer is best at growing corn, so they can exchange and both be better off. When governments have amassed the power to regulate the economy and the behavior of its citizens, they become an important third-party in every transaction. Thus arises crony capitalism where corporations are incentivized to supplicate the government into helping them make more money with less effort. The blacksmith can lobby for blacksmith licensing to keep backyard upstarts from repairing plowshares or making small iron implements without the apprenticeship necessary to obtain a license. The blacksmith is freed from competition and can thus charge more and work less. The farmer can seek subsidies where other citizens must pay them not to grow corn. Both blacksmiths and farmers can demand that the government provide them with medical care and retirement income, at the expense of others. There are of course benefits to having governments, but it is a diminishing return. As I say, the wealth of the nation is in what is produced per capita and governments tend to create dependent classes who are out of the workforce. Government regulations can prevent capitalist excesses, but the bureaucracies created never stop there – they have their own self-interest to grow.   Inevitably the government regulatory overlay raises the price of everything including education and healthcare. Government control of education inevitably results in graduates who are indoctrinated rather than educated in how to function productively in a capitalist system. These citizens are conditioned to expect a nanny state and thus will vote for more government. This is not sustainable, particularly when the government cannot even manage its own budget, resulting in massive government debt, and with pension and entitlement obligations they have no hope of ever paying. That's not to say a system of government could not be created that has feedback systems to prevent their counerproductive growth into areas best left alone. No democracy can evolve in that direction once it has passed the tipping point. That point probably occurred in the US in the middle of the last century. I don't see a way out. Ethics are a completely separate issue. Unfortunately, with the growth of government, legal versus illegal has replaced ethical versus unethical. Moral compasses have been replaced with lawyers. This is not confined to corporations. The culture of any large organization comes from the top down, whether it be a corporation, a government, a nongovernmental organization, a trade organization, a special interest group, a scientific organization, or whatever. The ethics and agenda of those at the top filter down, and members of the organization who disagree will either follow the culture anyway or leave. Stalinism reflected Stalin's beliefs, and Apple reflected Jobs' beliefs. If the organization does unethical things, there is a spectrum of responsibility starting at the top with complicity trickling down, sometimes to the individual on the front line. Those at the top bear full responsibility for the culture they have created and for the decisions down the line that that culture made inevitable.
John Denison (3 years ago)
Good response, I can see your point...to a point :) I think you said it perfectly there in the end: "Shouldn't we seek the LEAST flawed system". Absolutely, I agree. However, maybe we should keep looking because capitalism lamentably no longer works as it once did. We don't need to look too far, nor too wide, to see that this is true.   I stand by what I initially said...the problem with the system, is not the system itself, but "how" the system is exploited. Greed, as far as I am concerned, is not self interest...greed is self interest devoid of any sense of moral or ethical resolve, and something that certainly has no time for the role of innovation and competition. This is why there are suicide nets around Chinese buildings providing the gadgets for Apple. This is why trillions of dollars and pounds are spent on weaponry every year to protect interests under the flimsy guise of freedom. This is why social institutions like healthcare and tuition are being plundered, and why pensions are being wiped out by the need for banks to stay afloat. People were once better off because of the validity of capitalism, and the institutions that were in place to promote its cause...true, but there has been a stark decline over its merits, primarily because it can't be sustained in its present form, as evidenced by the markets themselves.  Greed, selfishness, and corruption will always breed ideologies which WILL slaughter and kill, because such attributes can only breed megalomania on one side, contempt in the middle, and jealousy at the end. No one likes to see a rule for one and another rule for another...unfortunately for many...this is what capitalism has come to represent.
saar144 (3 years ago)
Naomi, a true hero.
saar144 (3 years ago)
+John Howard Aren't you that moron that starts babbling @ 40:00?
Zwqne von ß (3 years ago)
+John Howard OMG what a troll ! ☠
Turtleproof (3 years ago)
+MrByoung82 Nope, he's going down the thread trolling. Ignore and report.
MrByoung82 (3 years ago)
+John Howard Don't you have anything better to do.
Catherine Thompson (3 years ago)
+John Howard tá tú ar leathcheann
In Spire (3 years ago)
Exellent, important ideas - Naomi Klein knows, that now is the time to change our economic undestanding, if we are to save the gloub for human beings. The earth will survive but we do not if we do not act now.
aqua C (3 years ago)
such a powerful voice of sentimental quality. A kindred spirit and so truly needed for obvious reasons now more than ever
skatracey (3 years ago)
Thanks for broadcasting Naomi. Important info about Nauru. She bought me to tears with "international crimes"
Thomas Mitchelhill (3 years ago)
Naomi Klein is an amazing mind, her ideas and her principles must be shared and enacted upon in Australian society.
Eleanor (3 years ago)
+Peter Parker Can you be more specific? Do you mean freedom to murder, freedom to steal, etc? Because I think you shouldn't be free to do those things. Those are things that you are not free to do, but rich capitalists are. Whose freedom are you talking about, exactly?
Thomas Mitchelhill (3 years ago)
+Peter Parker this is freedom man, she analyses things through a marxist lens but she's 100% for a highly regulated corporate sphere, and for the deregulation of government policy on the citizen sphere. Her ideas are the foundation of individual freedom. Socialist viewpoints aren't inherently ultra facist and deny people freedom, they just analyse how we can all work together to create a more equal society; with a government that cracks down on financial inequality and less on the real behaviour of human beings. If anything a socialist outlook grants real freedom to the individual, and destroys the enormous inequality that creates the societal issues that governments need to create policy for in the first place.
Peter Parker (3 years ago)
+Thomas Mitchelhill Naomi Klein is a marxist control freak. I think I'll stick to freedom thanks.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.