Chris Knight slams Chomsky's linguistics

[The Idler]

Extraordinary double-act of Noam Chomsky

When the brain reached a certain level of complexity or when a mutation took place in the genetic instructions it received, the facility for language was installed. This is the myth which suited both the US military-industrial complex and Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalism. Chris Knight examines the paradox


Weekly Worker covered it here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=1003839)

[anticap]

The lede contains a naked and shameless use of the guilt by association (http://fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html) fallacy, which doesn't exactly entice me to learn what else Peter Brady has to say.

[Meridian]

It's awful when pages have completely white backgrounds, with just a tiny bit of black text to read. The effect is like staring directly into a lightbulb for many minutes.

Anyways, interesting article. I agree with some of the points about Chomsky, though disagree with others made by the writer. For above reasons I did not read all of it. My eyes started bleeding.

[Leon_Trotsky]

Chomsky I think has done a lot to to expose the crimes of US Imperialism, but turns around and does a real service them by claiming their is a direct line from Lenin to Stalin. He also, claims America is the "freest most democratic country in the world". Try telling that to blacks and latinos being gunned down in the ghettos or the hooded prisoners in Guantamino or the Japanese- Americans put in concentration camps.

[Leon_Trotsky]

Well, those are my opinions anyways.

[RED DAVE]

I read it. It combines a critique of Chomsky, his scientific work and poltics, which should be taken seriously, with a big chunk of stalinist ad hominems, which is bullshit.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

shows how "Stalinist" is a completely meaningless term now. Chris Knight is a Trotskyist, not a "Stalinist".Thanx for your point. I found the criticism to be rigid and filled with guilt by association, which is a technique I find quite typical of stalinists. The fact that Knight employs these does not speak well for him.

As I said, Kight's scientific and political criticisms need to taken seriously, but his rhetoric, stinks.

RED DAVE

[zundap]

Chomsky I think has done a lot to to expose the crimes of US Imperialism, but turns around and does a real service them by claiming their is a direct line from Lenin to Stalin. He also, claims America is the "freest most democratic country in the world". Try telling that to blacks and latinos being gunned down in the ghettos or the hooded prisoners in Guantamino or the Japanese- Americans put in concentration camps.

Chomsky is right in the sense that if the Americans as a majority decided that they wanted something other than capitalism, they could use the vote and have it. I'm inclined to agree with a friend of mine when he says that Chomsky is a pompous old fart. Have you noticed that Chomsky is heavy on the crimes of capitalism, but very light on what could replace it.

[cska]

I stopped reading at the end of the section on Chomsky's science, but the article seemed like something written by a 12 year old.

His linguistic theory is far better than anything any other linguists had given us at the time. The author seems to be attacking Chomsky's theory based on emotional grounds, without giving any coherent reasons why we should actually reject it. It sounded almost like someone from Fox News had written it.

I don't know about the politics section, though, as I couldn't keep reading such a poorly written article.

[Bilan]

Chomsky is right in the sense that if the Americans as a majority decided that they wanted something other than capitalism, they could use the vote and have it. I'm inclined to agree with a friend of mine when he says that Chomsky is a pompous old fart. Have you noticed that Chomsky is heavy on the crimes of capitalism, but very light on what could replace it.

The latter part of this is a bit of a non-criticism. The crimes of capitalism need to be documented, and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't do this (or anyone else for that matter).

He has written articles on anarcho-syndicalism, anyhow. It's more important, however, to illustrate the way capitalism actually works than to waste your time writing an a priori blue print on what could exist. There's plenty of people doing that anyhow, and there's a heap of those which have already been done which still have a lot of validity, from Lenin's "State and Revolution" to Malatesta's "L'anarchia"

I think his lack of depth on the question of means to ending capitalism is quite a natural component of his, and generally, anarcho-syndicalist politics. There is a lack of focus on theoretical depth compared to marxism or other anarchist tendencies.

[gilhyle]

I have never understood how anyone could take Chomsky's linguistic theories seriously.

It has always been a complex artifice, in each of its forms. but it lacks all persuasive force.

In the worst sense its just a hypothetical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In addition to Chris Knight's work, comrades can find a Marxist critiique of Chomsky's linguistics here:

Lecercle, J-J., A Marxist Philosophy Of Language, translated by Gregory Elliott (EJ Brill, 2006).

Although, much else in the book is of little use, alas!