Liberalism and Noam Chomsky....

[RadioRaheem84]

I did not start this thread to label Chomsky a liberal, but I did notice that some of the stuff he says reeks of liberalism sometimes. I don't know if this is a result of him being in the limelight a bit more than other dissident intellectuals (so he doesn't want to sound too "commie") but sometimes his remarks regarding policies the States should employ make me wonder just how serious he takes material and class analysis.

To his credit Chomsky has been one of the most vocal critic of the liberal political establishment, much more so than relying on attacking the right wing. His major works, in fact his best work has been on the liberal policies during the Cold War.

He can be very materialist at some turns and then just say stuff that sounds idealist and I cannot quite put the two together. How does he go sometimes from analyzing the social class structure of American politics and then say something idealistic when discussing a preferred society? For instance, his rather ideal stance on free speech, his use of the word totalitarian, etc.

Is this the result of liberalism in Noam Chomsky or liberalism embedded in Anarchism? Or both?

I don't want to single him out, Michael Parenti is supposedly a Marxist-Leninist or at least a Marxist, yet praises the social democracies of Scandinavia sometimes in his lectures. He couches his language in progressive dialogue sometimes, especially his lectures after the 80s. Did he have a change?

Also, was Zinn a Marxist? I mean he wrote Marx in Soho. I can never tell because these great scholars sound like such progressive types sometimes.

[28350]

Chomsky's a liberal, imo.

EDIT:

Chomsky is the most virulent imaginable opponent of social science in general and of Marxism in particular. Since the late 1950s, bourgeois hostility towards Marxism in western intellectual life has found its most extreme and articulate champion in Noam Chomsky.
http://www.readysteadybook.com/Article.aspx?page=chrisknight

[HEAD ICE]

Noam Chomsky is an academic and his personal political beliefs are often very vague. He says he is an anarchist but he has never really expounded on it in what I have read. His best work is of course on US foreign policy. I don't care too much to call him a liberal, but I can attest that his work often pushes people into radical leftism despite what their political leanings may evolve into. His ability to illustrate the connections between capitalism and US foreign policy is seldom done by people as famous as him in a convincing way. While I don't know if Noam Chomsky's personal politics are radical, he has surely influenced many radicals.

Howard Zinn was also pretty vague about his politics, but his recently released FBI file shows that he was a member of the Communist Party. I doubt this was a smear because this was an internal document.

I think Michael Parenti was more explicit about his Marxism in his early works, and even though I haven't noticed much of a change in his politics he has certainly toned down his political lineage to marx.

[Jazzhands]

He can be very materialist at some turns and then just say stuff that sounds idealist and I cannot quite put the two together. How does he go sometimes from analyzing the social class structure of American politics and then say something idealistic when discussing a preferred society? For instance, his rather ideal stance on free speech.QUOTE]

Well, the idealistic society is his conception of a classless and stateless society, although I will admit he does sound a little too dreamy. In general, Chomsky's analysis of present and past material conditions in America are delivered in terms that college students and other Americans are likely to respond to, so he talks to them in the same terms as the bourgeois news, not as a Marxist theoretician.

[QUOTE]Is this the result of liberalism in Noam Chomsky or liberalism embedded in Anarchism? Or both?

I think it's the second. However, nobody starts out an anarchist, and I'm pretty sure he was a liberal before then. Every ideology a person has stays with them even after they've moved on to something else. So it's likely both, with emphasis on the second.


Also, was Zinn a Marxist? I mean he wrote Marx in Soho. I can never tell because these great scholars sound like such progressive types sometimes.

He wasn't a classical Marxist. He was a libertarian socialist, and more anarchist than anything else. You don't need to be a Marxist to write something like Marx in Soho. I still use Marx's theories and methods of analysis and action and I'm an anarchist. You also don't need to be a Marxist to reach some of the conclusions he makes in Marx in Soho (for instance, how the dictatorship of the proletariat he was talking about is not at all the same thing as the Soviet Union was).

[RadioRaheem84]

Reading his book, Language and Politics, the guy doesn't seem to know much about the Bolshevism he disparages so much. He just totally writes off Lenin without giving much info as to why. He calls himself a socialist, but stresses that he is a non-Bolshevik, non-authoritarian socialist. I mean his stance is pretty strange to me but I wouldn't really call him a liberal. He is pretty openly anti-capitalist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, the idealistic society is his conception of a classless and stateless society, although I will admit he does sound a little too dreamy. In general, Chomsky's analysis of present and past material conditions in America are delivered in terms that college students and other Americans are likely to respond to, so he talks to them in the same terms as the bourgeois news, not as a Marxist theoretician.

Yes, he is a bit dreamy with his view of what a better society would look like. And yes he uses a lot of liberal terminology, sometimes to a detriment though. I can never make out a consistent position of his.


I think it's the second. However, nobody starts out an anarchist, and I'm pretty sure he was a liberal before then. Every ideology a person has stays with them even after they've moved on to something else. So it's likely both, with emphasis on the second.

According to him, he's been an anarchist since he was 12 supporting the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.


He wasn't a classical Marxist. He was a libertarian socialist, and more anarchist than anything else. You don't need to be a Marxist to write something like Marx in Soho. I still use Marx's theories and methods of analysis and action and I'm an anarchist. You also don't need to be a Marxist to reach some of the conclusions he makes in Marx in Soho (for instance, how the dictatorship of the proletariat he was talking about is not at all the same thing as the Soviet Union was).

Well I assumed as much as Zinn received the idea for the play after attending a Communist rally and being bonked upside the head by a policeman. Yet, he also couches a lot of what he says in progressive-liberal left language. I figured him to be at least a Trot.

[RadioRaheem84]

His ability to illustrate the connections between capitalism and US foreign policy is seldom done by people as famous as him in a convincing way.Parenti nails it to a tee, or at least did so in his earlier lectures. Chomsky doesn't explicitly do so, but tends to gravitate the conversation toward hypocritical political stances by the establishment and their allegiance to major corporations. If one doesn't put the pieces together to figure out the problem is systemic then one could easily be a "radical reformer" listening to Chomsky.

[Tablo]

He's an Anarchist, but yeah, sometimes his politics are a bit wishy washy. I've never seen him support Liberal ideology though. He mainly just supports reformist tactics which are ultimately doomed to fail.

[fa2991]

Chomsky is a unique case. He is very anti-Leninist and doesn't care much for Marx, but I think that this is just a result of him being an anarchist since his childhood. He doesn't have a history with Marx, Lenin, etc. and I imagine that he just isn't inclined to sugarcoat his views on them. Part of his hostility may be due to Bertrand Russell's scathing critiques of Lenin, which he has surely read. He's relatively sympathetic to the Viet Cong, Mao, Cuba, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., though.

He has been heavily influenced by Jefferson, Smith, and the Enlightenment, and openly claims that anarchism is from such a lineage. That could be part of the problem.

I think that the rest of his seemingly liberal inclinations just stem from the fact that he's a relatively quiet, old fashioned kind of guy.


Also, was Zinn a Marxist? I mean he wrote Marx in Soho. I can never tell because these great scholars sound like such progressive types sometimes.Like most social anarchists since Bakunin, he was an anarchist communist who was heavily influenced by Marx's ideas and who retained Marxist sympathies his whole life.

He was a Marxist-Leninist in his younger days when he was an active member of the Communist Party, but Stalin's abuses made him question and then abandon the Marxian concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Reading about Emma Goldman, etc. won him over to the anarchist conception of socialism. He died still believing in the Marxist conception of history, etc., though he was certainly no expert.

[Agnapostate]

Which "liberalism"? Classical liberalism, or modern Rawlsian liberalism? Zinn was some variant of Leninist when he was young, but described himself as an anarchist for the majority of his career.

[Raúl Duke]

Is this the result of liberalism in Noam Chomsky or liberalism embedded in Anarchism? Or both?

It's the liberalism in Noam Chomsky.

I call him the "liberal's anarchist."

He makes good critiques of US foreign policy but beyond that I don't see much more.

[Barry Lyndon]

[QUOTE=RadioRaheem84;1834081]I don't want to single him out, Michael Parenti is supposedly a Marxist-Leninist or at least a Marxist, yet praises the social democracies of Scandinavia sometimes in his lectures. He couches his language in progressive dialogue sometimes, especially his lectures after the 80s. Did he have a change?
/QUOTE]

I consider many aspects of the Scandanavian countries admirable, their certainly much better places to live then the neo-liberal USA. Parenti praises them sometimes as part of his point that even under capitalism the working class can force the ruling class to make significant positive concessions. I have read or heard nothing from him to indicate that he is not a Marxist anymore. Rather it seems that he is probably feels there is no longer much of a point in arguing with an American Left that refuses to be open minded about Marxism and the positive aspects of existing socialist countries.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Zinn was a confusing man. He went off in multiple directions.
He seemed to admire past American radicals, such as Debs, Goldman, and the IWW. He also adovated civil disobedience and taking to the streets. However, he didn't ever advocate a specific platform, usually just a broad progressive agenda, such as the rights to housing, universal healthcare, etc. He said he was a socialist, but rarely spoke of workers controlling the means of production. He also voted for Ralph Nader. However, in one interview, he said the best way a society can run is the model of Anarchist Catalonia. I was surprised to find out this sympathy towards anarchism, and yet in his play Marx in Soho he treated Bakunin very unfairly.

As for Chomsky, he picks his ideology when necessary. A self-described anarchist who tends to vote democrat when supposedly "important." Yikes...

[NGNM85]

As for Chomsky, he picks his ideology when necessary. A self-described anarchist who tends to vote democrat when supposedly "important." Yikes...

You may have read the statement which you are mangling, but, clearly, you didn't understand it.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

He explained it pretty well in one book. He said he voted in elections when it matters. When his state is considered up in the air, he votes. When it's predicted to be republican, he doesn't. I'm interested in how you took it. Although I could be a bit off, it's been years since I read that passage.

[MarxSchmarx]

Part of this stems from the fact that Chomsky's leftism is primarily philosophical, and neither practical nor even social scientific.

Having said that I find Chomsky's "anarchism" to be, well, very American. His views on economics tend to take a very definite second place to his views on concepts or values like "freedom", but paradoxically he is quite pragmatic in his polemics. Moreover his egalitarianism is rooted in the primacy of the individual.

This stems from the fact that Chomsky likely won't dispute the fact that he is a liberal. As fa2991 points out, Chomsky quite openly claims that his leftist views are the natural heir to Englightenment ideology

[NGNM85]

He explained it pretty well in one book. He said he voted in elections when it matters. When his state is considered up in the air, he votes. When it's predicted to be republican, he doesn't. I'm interested in how you took it. Although I could be a bit off, it's been years since I read that passage.

First of all, we need to go back to the original source. What does he actually say? There's no reason to speculate when we can easily pull up the original source material.

I don't know what you're specifically referencing, but this segment from the "Chomsky on Anarchism" collection by AK press sums up his position;

“..the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution. So, if you’re concerned with the people, let’s be concrete, let’s take the United States. There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That’s’ under attack in an attempt to minimize the state. Well, Anarchists can’t seem to understand that they are to support that. …meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable…and purely totalitarian.
…If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you’ll support the state sector at this point, recognizing that in the long term it’s illegitimate.
..In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that’s’ removed we’d go back to a…dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that’s’ hardly a step towards liberation.”

So he makes it pretty clear, this is essentially common sense.

If you want a more specific example, we can take this segment from an interview on Real News network where he, essentially, says the same thing;

"CHOMSKY: Well, I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions, because all the elevated rhetoric about change and hope and so on will dissolve into standard centrist Democratic policies if he takes office. However, there is a difference, and it's been studied quite closely by political scientists. There's a strong difference over time. You don't see it in any particular moment, but over time the general population, the large majority of the population other than the very wealthy, tends to do considerably better under Democratic than under Republican administrations. And the reason is sort of what you said: they reflect different elite constituencies, and the differences are quite striking and very noticeable. So if that's what matters to you, you know, that's usually a pretty good guy if you're voting. It's not that the Democrats represent public opinion. They don't. In fact, like the Republicans, they're pretty relatively right of public opinion on a host of major issues, including those of most importance to the public. In fact, what's happening now, it's interesting it's not being discussed. It's very striking; it tells you a lot about American democracy. For years, decades, in fact, one of the leading concerns, if not the top concern of the public, has been the health care system, which is understandable. It's a total catastrophe. It has about twice the costs of other industrial countries and some of the worst outcomes, and it's painful for individuals. If you've ever spent a little time at an ER watching people come for a bad cold, then you can see what it's like."
http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2593

Again, this is pretty basic common sense, and in no way contradicts the fundamental principles of Anarchism.

[fa2991]

Zinn was a confusing man. He went off in multiple directions.
He seemed to admire past American radicals, such as Debs, Goldman, and the IWW. He also adovated civil disobedience and taking to the streets. However, he didn't ever advocate a specific platform, usually just a broad progressive agenda, such as the rights to housing, universal healthcare, etc. He said he was a socialist, but rarely spoke of workers controlling the means of production. He also voted for Ralph Nader. However, in one interview, he said the best way a society can run is the model of Anarchist Catalonia. I was surprised to find out this sympathy towards anarchism, and yet in his play Marx in Soho he treated Bakunin very unfairly....

How are any of those things confusing or contradictory? He was openly an anarchist (there's a great article about it in The Zinn Reader called simply "Anarchism") - he just happened to be nonsectarian, an open person who embraced Debs, Marx, and Goldman all at once as just facets of socialism's rich culture. He talked a lot about free housing and universal health care, true, but that doesn't make him less of an anarchist. It just means that he emphasized the communist in "anarchist communist."

And his portrayal of Bakunin was hardly unfair. The whole reason he put that character into the play was to let some of the air out of the Marx character. So maybe Zinn's Bakunin pissed on Marx's floor. Does that really seem that uncharacteristic of Bakunin? :lol:

Did anyone else see the DVD PM Press just put out that has hour long interviews with both Chomsky and Zinn? The Zinn interview especially was very helpful. Anyone who hasn't seen it should give it a look.

[RadioRaheem84]

How are any of those things confusing or contradictory? He was openly an anarchist (there's a great article about it in The Zinn Reader called simply "Anarchism") - he just happened to be nonsectarian, an open person who embraced Debs, Marx, and Goldman all at once as just facets of socialism's rich culture. He talked a lot about free housing and universal health care, true, but that doesn't make him less of an anarchist. It just means that he emphasized the communist in "anarchist communist."

And his portrayal of Bakunin was hardly unfair. The whole reason he put that character into the play was to let some of the air out of the Marx character. So maybe Zinn's Bakunin pissed on Marx's floor. Does that really seem that uncharacteristic of Bakunin? :lol:

Did anyone else see the DVD PM Press just put out that has hour long interviews with both Chomsky and Zinn? The Zinn interview especially was very helpful. Anyone who hasn't seen it should give it a look.

In an interview for Real News, Zinn said that "big government" was a good thing, not a bad thing. Then he went on to praise the New Deal. From that interview I gathered he was a progressive leftist, soc dem. I would've never thought of him as an anarchist.

Oh and his play Marx in Soho, to dismiss the other regimes as gangster states was off the mark.

[RadioRaheem84]

First of all, we need to go back to the original source. What does he actually say? There's no reason to speculate when we can easily pull up the original source material.We know the quotes and the sources NGN. That's why I started this thread. Why the fuck would I start this thread if I hadn't read those particular quotes or other stuff he has written which reeks of liberalism.

Why is it always a question of misrepresentation, misreading, language barriers, with you? Apparently, no one in here understands except you?


So he makes it pretty clear, this is essentially common sense.What? Class struggle? That's a given. But the point should be on supporting popular resistance to stopping the State from abolishing those things which we won, not the politicians which promise to keep them or "reform" them. The consensus among the politicians is that social programs need to go, across the line, this is so among the most vocal Dems and Reps. I agree with the first quote about protecting the state to keep social programs WE won (not handed to us from above), but his second quote about supporting Obama to go against McCain? That's spurious as we would fight against him as much as we would fight any politician that wanted to cut social programs. Again, no one did more to drastically reduce welfare than Clinton because at least the Republicans in the 80s left what ever they didn't slash in tact. Clinton butchered to where it's a big circle jerk to receive aid.

So the idea that people do better under Democrats than Republicans ignores the way the economy actually dictates policy. I am surprised Chomsky would concede to such a liberal canard like studies out there published by liberal think tanks to make Dems look better than Repubs.


Again, this is pretty basic common sense, and in no way contradicts the fundamental principles of Anarchism. A lot of Anarchists, and I mean a lot of them, NGN, have taken issue with Chomsky on his beliefs listed above.

And don't harbor any illusions that you're somehow an anarchist too.

[fa2991]

In an interview for Real News, Zinn said that "big government" was a good thing, not a bad thing. Then he went on to praise the New Deal. From that interview I gathered he was a progressive leftist, soc dem. I would've never thought of him as an anarchist.

A lot of anarchists - and socialists - wish that the present regimes would provide people with better social services. The New Deal is when they started to provide at least a few.


Oh and his play Marx in Soho, to dismiss the other regimes as gangster states was off the mark.

I only remember him saying that about Stalin's Russia. Believe it or not, but most people think that executing your comrades en masse is over the line. Marx certainly wouldn't have approved, which is the point of that accusation within the context of the play.

[RadioRaheem84]

A lot of anarchists - and socialists - wish that the present regimes would provide people with better social services. The New Deal is when they started to provide at least a few.

Let's not get started on the New Deal. It was beneficial for class struggle but nothing more.


I only remember him saying that about Stalin's Russia. Believe it or not, but most people think that executing your comrades en masse is over the line. Marx certainly wouldn't have approved, which is the point of that accusation within the context of the play.

No need for the sarcasm. Also, lets not mince words about a misreading of history.

[fa2991]

Let's not get started on the New Deal. It was beneficial for class struggle but nothing more.

The point is just that it's not so crazy an opinion for even a socialist to hold.




No need for the sarcasm. Also, lets not mince words about a misreading of history.:lol: Yeah, okay.

I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, so I have no reason to take a positive stance on Stalinism. Personally, I don't think he really misread history at all.

[RadioRaheem84]

The point is just that it's not so crazy an opinion for even a socialist to hold.


Understandble but the point was that these great thinkers couch their language in progressive/liberal speak and I was wondering why they do such things.




I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, so I have no reason to take a positive stance on Stalinism. Personally, I don't think he really misread history at all.


Well surprisingly, Noam and Zinn take a rather liberal-ish approach to analyzing the past regimes (and Lenin for that matter)sometimes.

[Red Commissar]

Could you specify exactly what parts come off as "liberalish"? Really the only thing I can think of is that they do their argument in such a way that it has some acceptance among people who call themselves Liberal in the american "centre-left" way, but the nature of their arguments are still highly critical of the way America and the West fashion themselves in.

I find that Chomsky and Zinn however are useful for introducing some concepts of socialist thought into people. Gateway leftists if you will.

[~Spectre]

These threads get absolutely idiotic every single time (no offense to the OP).

Chomsky is by no stretch a liberal, and there are like 8 posters on this site off the top of my head that have made themselves look ridiculous by making this claim.

Besides the fact that the premise is wrong, one must keep in mind how fruitless it is to try and comb the thousand billion lines said and published by him for something that sounds "liberal", what's the point?

[RadioRaheem84]

These threads get absolutely idiotic every single time (no offense to the OP).

Chomsky is by no stretch a liberal, and there are like 8 posters on this site off the top of my head that have made themselves look ridiculous by making this claim.

Besides the fact that the premise is wrong, one must keep in mind how fruitless it is to try and comb the thousand billion lines said and published by him for something that sounds "liberal", what's the point?

This thread wasn't started to pin him down as a liberal, but the initial question was whether he couches some of the stuff he says in terminology he think the average public will understand.

This could be said for Michael Parenti and Howard Zinn to some extent, which why I asked.

Then again one could hear Chomsky and not really get the impression that he is a radical per-se but a really critical liberal. Bill Maher thought as much when describing Chomsky as a "real" liberal that doesn't get plastered on TV.

This is also a thread to look at some of Chomsky's positions critically. From advocating a really lucid class analysis of society and the political structure to then advocating some sort of pragmatic stance on supporting certain candidates doesn't hold up, and others, not just on this website but other scholars have criticized him for this.

So I don't think it's idiotic for some members in here to question him.

[RadioRaheem84]

Could you specify exactly what parts come off as "liberalish"? Really the only thing I can think of is that they do their argument in such a way that it has some acceptance among people who call themselves Liberal in the american "centre-left" way, but the nature of their arguments are still highly critical of the way America and the West fashion themselves in.

I find that Chomsky and Zinn however are useful for introducing some concepts of socialist thought into people. Gateway leftists if you will.

The nature of their arguments is one of being critical of the status quo but one could come away thinking that reform can help. I remember listening to Chomsky when I was younger and thinking he was just a radical "liberal". I later understood his position clearer and that was after reading a lot of his book, but from his lectures I did not get this.

Other things about Chomsky; his use of the word totalitarian, the way he speaks of an idealist sense of free speech, his criticism of Leninism, authoritarian v. libertarian socialism, the way he describes certain foriegn policy measures as neccessity for stable peace, his conception of the economy, etc.

What more do you want?

[~Spectre]

This thread wasn't started to pin him down as a liberal, but the initial question was whether he couches some of the stuff he says in terminology he think the average public will understand.

This could be said for Michael Parenti and Howard Zinn to some extent, which why I asked.

Then again one could hear Chomsky and not really get the impression that he is a radical per-se but a really critical liberal. Bill Maher thought as much when describing Chomsky as a "real" liberal that doesn't get plastered on TV.

This is also a thread to look at some of Chomsky's positions critically. From advocating a really lucid class analysis of society and the political structure to then advocating some sort of pragmatic stance on supporting certain candidates doesn't hold up, and others, not just on this website but other scholars have criticized him for this.

So I don't think it's idiotic for some members in here to question him.

Thing is, the question of whether he couches what he says in more common language, can be answered by just looking at the source of the comment/line in question, and just having a normal understanding of what he stands for.

He's on record calling for the overthrow of capitalism, has called capitalism incompatible with democracy, and has said the means of production should be turned over to worker and community control. He's blasted liberals as being worst than conservatives.

His harshest criticisms are in fact usually reserved for liberals, such as the New York Times, or liberal takes on the Iraq war, i.e. the Iraq war as technical blunder, justification being no different than a Nazi general calling the invasion of the USSR a tactical blunder.

That when trying to persuasively speak on a college campus he'll point out that invading Iraq under the guise of enforcing U.N. law is incompatible with U.N. regulations, is held against him, is just fruitless, lazy, sectarianism.


Regarding some of the rest, Bill Maher just equates Liberalism with leftism, that's irrelevant.

And Chomsky calling for a pragmatic vote has nothing to do with renouncing material, class based analysis of society.

So yes, while he'll sometimes speak to his audience in less radical terms in order to make a good persuasive speech, there's nothing more to it than that. His positions are not remotely liberal.

[x359594]

...nobody starts out an anarchist, and I'm pretty sure he was a liberal before then. Every ideology a person has stays with them even after they've moved on to something else. So it's likely both, with emphasis on the second...

Then that would make him a liberal from birth to age 8 since at age 9 he wrote a defense of the Spanish Revolution of 1936 and from that point on identified with anarcho-syndicalism.

The typical liberals are people like Arthur Schelsinger Jr., Anthony Lewis, and more recently Rachel Maddow. The dividing line is their position vis-a-vis capitalism: for the liberal the capitalist mode of production and all its ramifications is the best one available although it's in need of improvement, regulation, etc. Certainly Chomsky is consistently anti-capitalist.

It seems to me that Chomsky can be placed on a different spectrum than liberal-socialist. I think the possibilist-maximalist spectrum works better in terms of elucidating Chomsky's position on the left. He clearly falls on the possibilist end of the spectrum (and for that matter so does Parenti.) For example, immediate revolution is the maxim program while holding actions against further capitalist encroachment on the rights of working people is the possibilist position. In other words, we would like to seize the means of production in the long run, but for now and under present conditions we want to keep our jobs, raise our wages and make our workplaces safe.

In the realm of anti-imperial struggle Chomsky has supported various national liberation revolutions over the years, including those by marxist-leninist formations (much to the chagrin of many anarchists,) something no liberal would ever do.

[RadioRaheem84]

In other words, we would like to seize the means of production in the long run, but for now and under present conditions we want to keep our jobs, raise our wages and make our workplaces safe.

You mean reformist gains in class struggle? Does this include voting for right politicians?

[RadioRaheem84]

Thing is, the question of whether he couches what he says in more common language, can be answered by just looking at the source of the comment/line in question, and just having a normal understanding of what he stands for.

The point is that when one goes into one of his lectures one doesn't come out thinking that he is all that radical as much as he is pointing out hypocrisies in US foreign policy. He doesn't necessarily tie it to capitalism or offers a rather systemic critique of it other than talk about corporations and their ties to the political arena.


He's on record calling for the overthrow of capitalism, has called capitalism incompatible with democracy, and has said the means of production should be turned over to worker and community control. He's blasted liberals as being worst than conservatives.

No one is denying this. At least I am not, and do not think the point of this is to test radical credentials, but to question some of the supposed liberalism is some of the stuff he says. I asked whether this was liberalism in Chomsky or liberalism in Anarchist thought. A comrade pointed out that it was the former as Chomsky himself has admitted to being an inheritor of classical liberalism and the primacy of the individual. That is why some of his stuff sounds strange. Again, like his conception of the economy and the State, and some of the idealism he spouts.


His harshest criticisms are in fact usually reserved for liberals, such as the New York Times, or liberal takes on the Iraq war, i.e. the Iraq war as technical blunder, justification being no different than a Nazi general calling the invasion of the USSR a tactical blunder.

Did you not read my original post? I sad that his best work was on liberals, especially his work on liberal policy during the Cold War.


That when trying to persuasively speak on a college campus he'll point out that invading Iraq under the guise of enforcing U.N. law is incompatible with U.N. regulations, is held against him, is just fruitless, lazy, sectarianism.

No it is not. It brings up a host of presuppositions like the stuff I mentioned earlier.


Regarding some of the rest, Bill Maher just equates Liberalism with leftism, that's irrelevant.

But that is my point. That going into what he is saying, without knowing much about the man, you would think he is just a sort of radical liberal/reformer. Like you said, one would have to look at his source material, his books and understand the man's beliefs.


And Chomsky calling for a pragmatic vote has nothing to do with renouncing material, class based analysis of society.
Pragmatic vote? C'mon, you're grasping there.



So yes, while he'll sometimes speak to his audience in less radical terms in order to make a good persuasive speech, there's nothing more to it than that. His positions are not remotely liberal.

The point was some of the language he employs is liberal and I am assuming for purposes of talking to the average crowd. Secondly, some of his positions do reek of liberalism/reformism, and last, I am not calling him an outright liberal. It seems that a lot of his positions do seem to stem from a presupposed belief in classical liberalism and the primacy of the individual like he has admitted.

[x359594]

You mean reformist gains in class struggle? Does this include voting for right politicians?

To the extent that reformism and voting in a particular instance takes the working class toward revolution. This is always behind the possibilist position; two steps forward, one step back.

The important point is the presence or absence of the causes and conditions for revolution. For example, I live in Los Angeles where the memory of the Los Angeles uprising of 1992 is shared by all radicals. We think that another uprising is a real possibility, and to that end we are trying to politicize it in advance by identifying the class enemy so that the people who've had enough attack the right targets and not the symbolic over priced corner liquor store, that they occupy their workplaces first before burning them down (if it comes to that), that they seize public transportation and run it themselves instead of destroying it, that they direct their expropriation at the large retail outlets and not the small mom and pop 99 cent stores.

Now, no one expects another LA uprising to bring on the revolution, but a politicized mass outbreak will raise consciousness among the dispossessed here in Los Angeles and serve as an example to others; the gymnasium of the revolution as some have described such actions.

[RadioRaheem84]

To the extent that reformism and voting in a particular instance takes the working class toward revolution. This is always behind the possibilist position; two steps forward, one step back.

The important point is the presence or absence of the causes and conditions for revolution. For example, I live in Los Angeles where the memory of the Los Angeles uprising of 1992 is shared by all radicals. We think that another uprising is a real possibility, and to that end we are trying to politicize it in advance by identifying the class enemy so that the people who've had enough attack the right targets and not the symbolic over priced corner liquor store, that they occupy their workplaces first before burning them down (if it comes to that), that they seize public transportation and run it themselves instead of destroying it, that they direct their expropriation at the large retail outlets and not the small mom and pop 99 cent stores.

Now, no one expects another LA uprising to bring on the revolution, but a politicized mass outbreak will raise consciousness among the dispossessed here in Los Angeles and serve as an example to others; the gymnasium of the revolution as some have described such actions.

But how does this include voting for right politicians? Wouldn't they be denounced and included in the outrage you're trying to steer toward revolution?

Class struggle is another matter.

[x359594]

But how does this include voting for right politicians? Wouldn't they be denounced and included in the outrage you're trying to steer toward revolution?

Right politicians are a symptom and the idea is to draw our attention to the underlying causes.

To answer your question about voting for a right politician I need a "for instance" since this is not a formula that can be applied in all circumstances at all times.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am talking about Chomsky encouraging people to vote Democrat during the 04 and 08 elections.

[NGNM85]

We know the quotes and the sources NGN. That's why I started this thread. Why the fuck would I start this thread if I hadn't read those particular quotes or other stuff he has written which reeks of liberalism.

I was talking to NoOneIsIllegal, who asked me to illuminate Chomsky's position.


Why is it always a question of misrepresentation, misreading, language barriers, with you? Apparently, no one in here understands except you?

Not really. I've spoken to a number of people here who understand me perfectly. You are not the only one who seems to misunderstand or misuse these terms, but it's by no means universal.


What? Class struggle? That's a given. But the point should be on supporting popular resistance to stopping the State from abolishing those things which we won, not the politicians which promise to keep them or "reform" them.

We should preserve progress that has been acheived, while pushing for greater change.


The consensus among the politicians is that social programs need to go, across the line, this is so among the most vocal Dems and Reps.

Not so. The Republicans are essentially entirely against any social safety nets. The Democrats position is more of a range, but they generally favor keeping existing social programs, some are more progressive, some aren't.


I agree with the first quote about protecting the state to keep social programs WE won (not handed to us from above),

Holy shit, something I can actually agree with.


but his second quote about supporting Obama to go against McCain? That's spurious as we would fight against him as much as we would fight any politician that wanted to cut social programs. Again, no one did more to drastically reduce welfare than Clinton because at least the Republicans in the 80s left what ever they didn't slash in tact. Clinton butchered to where it's a big circle jerk to receive aid.

So the idea that people do better under Democrats than Republicans ignores the way the economy actually dictates policy. I am surprised Chomsky would concede to such a liberal canard like studies out there published by liberal think tanks to make Dems look better than Repubs.

The numbers don't lie. I posted the results of the Princeton study. We may have two wings of the business party, but they represent different elite constituencies, therefore, there is a difference in policy. A small difference, but it exists.


A lot of Anarchists, and I mean a lot of them, NGN, have taken issue with Chomsky on his beliefs listed above.

There are a lot of nimrods running around calling themselves Anarchists. I don't take responsibility for every one of them.


And don't harbor any illusions that you're somehow an anarchist too.

Even if you were using meaningful criteria, I don't see why it matters. We'd still be ideologically incompatible.

[x359594]

I am talking about Chomsky encouraging people to vote Democrat during the 04 and 08 elections.

In that case, for those who intended to vote it made tactical sense to buy time with center right politicians who would be likely to check further encroachments on workers' rights. (Chomsky himself didn't vote in either election.)

One cannot say with absolute certainty that "it makes no difference who is at the helm of the Empire."

Right now Californians are facing a choice between a far right avowed enemy of the working class and a center right candidate who held the office before and while there removed several obstacles to organizing that the United Farm Workers faced. This is empirical evidence that a difference exists between these two candidates.

Personally, I have no use for either one of them, but can you really say it makes no difference who wins this election?

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree with Chomsky that at the local level theres more of a noticible difference but like Chomsky also said in Understanding Power, at the federal the differences are slight and make little difference. This is why I can never understand Chomskys position about his encouragements to vote center right at the federal level.

I am a fan of the Monthly Review School and their theory of Monopoly Finance Capital. Under this theory politicians rarely have any room to be favorable toward social reforms. Since Carter, policy has shifted very rightward. The public has not benefited from either a dem or a rep since before the late 70s. How someone can see Larry Summers or Robert Rubin as even center right anymore is beyond me.

[Paulappaul]

It really matters what you define as "Liberal". In every country, their is a different meaning for Liberal, and within those meanings there are factions who disagree with one another.

Taken in the Classical sense, Noam Chomsky and most Socialists are in a sense Classical Liberals.

Classical Liberals such as Humboult and Rousseau believed man's central attribute was his freedom, which for Humboult cannot exist with the state as it tends to "make man an instrument to serve its arbitrary ends, overlooking his individual purposes". Humboult goes on in saying that

man never regards what he possesses as so much of his own, as what he does; and the labourer who tends a garden is perhaps in a truer sense its owner, than the listless voluptuary who enjoys its fruits.This forming an early critique of Alienation and Exploitation. Classical Liberals purpose an opposition to all but the most basic and minimal functions of states, which must be out of all affairs of personal and social life.

Human action being nothing more then that which flows from inner impulse,

it seems as if all peasants and craftsmen might be elevated into artists; that is, into men who love their labour for its own sake, improve it by their own plastic genius and inventive skill, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ennoble their character, and exalt and refine their enjoyments. And so humanity would be ennobled by the very things which now, though beautiful in themselves, so often go to degrade it... [F]reedom is the indispensable condition, without which even the pursuits most happily congenial to the individual nature, can never succeed in producing such fair and salutary influences. Whatever man is inclined to, without the free exercise of his own choice, or whatever only implies instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but still remains alien to his true nature, and is, indeed, effected by him, not so much with human agency, as with the mere exactness of mechanical routine.If man acts in accordance to external demands i.e. instructions from others rather then determining his own interests and labor "we may admire what he has does, but he despises what he is". This assertion being very similar to the Marx's philosophical manuscripts, particularly on the topic of the Alienation of Labor.

In what, then, consists the alienation of labor? First, in the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., that it does not belong to his nature, that therefore he does not realize himself in his work, that he denies himself in it, that he does not feel at ease in it, but rather unhappy, that he does not develop any free physical or mental energy, but rather mortifies his flesh and ruins his spirit. The worker, therefore, is only himself when he does not work, and in his work he feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor, therefore, is not voluntary, but forced--forced labor. It is not the gratification of a need, but only a means to gratify needs outside itself. Its alien nature shows itself clearly by the fact that work is shunned like the plague as soon as no physical or other kind of coercion exists. Marx's envisioning of Society being very similar to that Humboult's, that is when "labor as become not only a means of life, but life's prime want". Humboult however did not foresee the failures of Capitalism and that of Private Property, rather the failures of the State and the nature of Alienation. The critique of Capitalism though was recognized long before there was a socialist movement. As early as 1767, Simon Linguet a frenchmen and journalist declared that wage-labour is even worse than slavery.



It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat, and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live. It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him . . . What effective gain has the suppression of slavery brought him? . . Re is free, you say. Ah. That is his misfortune. The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him. But the handicraftsman costs nothing to the rich voluptuary who employs him . . . These men, it is said, have no master - they have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependenceThis critique of Wage Labor goes all the way back to Philospher Aristole who made the statement "[a]ll paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind". Cicero wrote in 44 BC that "…vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery." Somewhat similar criticisms have also been expressed by Henry George in Social Problems, Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice, as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds, however, might not always be connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss as in Socialism.


I don't think there is anything bad with being a Classical liberal, as long as you know what the term means. Chomsky knows this all to well, and a good insight into how he views a Socialist society is in his "government of the future" where he draws heavily on Marxist writers such as Anton Pannekoek, Otto Ruhle, and others of the Communist left, which he calls the representative of Marxism.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well, I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions, because all the elevated rhetoric about change and hope and so on will dissolve into standard centrist Democratic policies if he takes office. However, there is a difference, and it's been studied quite closely by political scientists. There's a strong difference over time. You don't see it in any particular moment, but over time the general population, the large majority of the population other than the very wealthy, tends to do considerably better under Democratic than under Republican administrations.

Is there any way to verify that Mr. Chomsky?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Is there any way to verify that Mr. Chomsky?

In before Clinton creates more low-wage shit jobs people have to work four of to afford even low-standard living

[RadioRaheem84]

I would agree that both liberals and socialists came out of the enlightenment but I wouldn't say that marxists and classical liberals share a lot of presumptions considering the latter is steeped in idealism. This is where I think that Chomsky and a lot of other leftists differ and why Chomsky comes off sounding "liberal" sometimes or I should say idealist.

[NGNM85]

Is there any way to verify that Mr. Chomsky?

Easily. For just one example you can check out the Princeton study I mentioned;
http://www.russellsage.org/publicati...rtels/document (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers/bartels/document)

[Qayin]

Chomskys bullshit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

The Faurisson affair is a term given to an academic controversy in the wake of a book by Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier. The scandal largely dealt with the inclusion of an essay by Noam Chomsky, entitled Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression, as an introduction to Faurisson's book, without Chomsky's knowledge or approval. Responding to a request for comment in a climate of attacks on Faurisson, Chomsky defended Faurisson's right to express and publish his opinions on the grounds that freedom of speech must be extended to all viewpoints, no matter how unpopular or fallacious.Kerry and Nader loving

Chomsky's "reluctant endorsement" for John Kerry as president in 2004 was controversial amongst some anarchists who tend to be critical of many political parties and electoral politics in general. Chomsky said "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." However, he later responded to this, saying that personally he would vote for Ralph Nader. "Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush."

IM AN ANARCHIST GUYZ

Chomsky has been criticized for doing research that is financed by and for the military. His linguistic work is used by the Pentagon to enhance human–computer interaction.Chomsky has responded with several arguments, "receiving financing from an institution only limits one's ability to speak out if that institution is totalitarian in nature", that "His intention was to inform the general population of what was going on so that individuals could make informed and unencumbered decisions about their actions", that "people have a responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, and therefore have the responsibility of thinking about the research they undertake and what it might lead to under existing conditions", and that "no institution should legislate what people are permitted to work on.":laugh:

[NGNM85]

Chomskys bullshit....

You know you never disappoint in living down to my estimation of you. However, there's something to be said for consistency.

[Qayin]

You know you never disappoint in living down to my estimation of you. However, there's something to be said for consistency.
derp.
Chomsky defended a Holocaust Denier, was pro-kerry/nader and gets help from the very thing he claims he wants to abolish.

[NGNM85]

derp.
Chomsky defended a Holocaust Denier, was pro-kerry/nader and gets help from the very thing he claims he wants to abolish.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Qayin]

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Address the fucking issue then.

[La Comédie Noire]

Easily. For just one example you can check out the Princeton study I mentioned;
http://www.russellsage.org/publicati...rtels/document (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers/bartels/document)

Thanks for the link. The study concedes it's a matter of weak income growth vs. declining income growth and the long term trend is still a widening income gap.

It'll be interesting to see if the Democratic Party will even be able to keep up the modest improvements to working class incomes it has in the past.

I'll freely admit, I don't find voting democrat an inspiring message.

[Thirsty Crow]

You know you never disappoint in living down to my estimation of you. However, there's something to be said for consistency.
You know, I suggest you take a look at the last quote provided, about his research for the military, which is apparently not totalitarian in nature.
Indeed, Chomsky is if not bullshit, then a very dubious introduction to radical leftist politics (for Americans, he's particularly suited; no offense, but it seems to me that the level of political awareness in the States is dismal, and its intellectuals on the left have to adapt to this environment).

But an anarchist, no, definately not (if you think that anarchist politics and principles are compatible with working for the military AND excusing that fact with a lame statement - you should get oof this board immediately).

[ContrarianLemming]

Having read almost everything Chomsky and Zinn wrote, and seen most of Parentis lectures online

chomsky = yes, he IS an anarhcist, he has stated it multiple times that he is an anarcho-syndicalist, he has stated that the anarchism of Bakunin was directly the heir to the enlightenment, not capitalism (where people get confused) and has stated that he believes in working class revolution in "Chomsky on anarchism". He support moderates as a lesser of two evils thingy. hating on him disregards the many many people introduced to class war anarchism because of him - and yes he has stated he beleives in class warfare.

Zinn = zinn has also stated he was an anarchist, any confusion on his views which I've seen here is simply due to a missunderstanding or lack of knowledge on his views, same as chomsky

Parenti was also mentioned, I've only seen that he was a Marxist, I've seen him described as a Leninist.

[Thirsty Crow]

Having read almost everything Chomsky and Zinn wrote, and seen most of Parentis lectures online

chomsky = yes, he IS an anarhcist, he has stated it multiple times that he is an anarcho-syndicalist, he has stated that the anarchism of Bakunin was directly the heir to the enlightenment, not capitalism (where people get confused) and has stated that he believes in working class revolution in "Chomsky on anarchism". He support moderates as a lesser of two evils thingy. hating on him disregards the many many people introduced to class war anarchism because of him - and yes he has stated he beleives in class warfare.

He has also stated that his work for the foremost imperialist agent - the U.S. military - is justified on grounds that it's not totalitarian in nature.
You have a massive contradiction here.

On the other hand, I wouldn't judge someone's politics on grounds of identity statements alone. Praxis is important.

[RadioRaheem84]

He has also stated that his work for the foremost imperialist agent - the U.S. military - is justified on grounds that it's not totalitarian in nature.

Wait a minute? Chomsky said that the Pentagon was not totalitarian?

[Thirsty Crow]

Wait a minute? Chomsky said that the Pentagon was not totalitarian?
See the last quote provided by AKM.

[RadioRaheem84]

See the last quote provided by AKM.


Ouch. First, I dislike the term 'totalitarian' but even under the way Chomsky employs it from time to time, how does he not see the Pentagon as such. Or at least think it's a tool of imperial dominance? If he does than does he think receiving aid from an imperial tool of dominance is OK because it's not totalitarian?

[Thirsty Crow]

Ouch. First, I dislike the term 'totalitarian' but even under the way Chomsky employs it from time to time, how does he not see the Pentagon as such. Or at least think it's a tool of imperial dominance? If he does than does he think receiving aid from an imperial tool of dominance is OK because it's not totalitarian?
Oh wait. I misinterpreted the quote.
I guess what he's trying to say is that although he receives money from the military they will not shut him up since the american military is not totalitarian in nature.
Way to go. Youu kep gething them cheques from Uncle Sam and you keep getting them cheques from your oh so radical books and lectures and everybody's happy.

[~Spectre]

Chomskys bullshit

Defending freedom of speech isn't bullshit you fucking loon.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair
Kerry and Nader loving



He's not "loving either". In fact he's very critical of Kerry and states that the small difference is only significant because the U.S. is a powerful state. English, do you speak it?



IM AN ANARCHIST GUYZ


He gets paid to teach and research linguistics. His work in linguistics wasn't done specifically for military language translation software, it was simply a ground breaking linguistic work, which has been adopted by software designers everywhere, and would still be used by people had he published it while employed by any other university.

Intellectual failure.

[~Spectre]

Ouch. First, I dislike the term 'totalitarian' but even under the way Chomsky employs it from time to time, how does he not see the Pentagon as such. Or at least think it's a tool of imperial dominance? If he does than does he think receiving aid from an imperial tool of dominance is OK because it's not totalitarian?

He works at MIT. MIT receives tax payer funding. Most residents of the United States have to at some point interact with or take tax payer money. The point you're trying to make is silly.

[RadioRaheem84]

He works at MIT. MIT receives tax payer funding. Most residents of the United States have to at some point interact with or take tax payer money. The point you're trying to make is silly.

I never insinuated that he was somehow less credible for doing so, but that it was misguided to protest military funding to MIT during the Vietnam War, while also having his work used by the Pentagon, some of it supposedly paid for by the Armed Services like Syntactic Structures. Even so, I understand his point about everything being touched by the State apparatus. What is he supposed to do, live in the woods?

Look this is news to me, if you had some other info regarding as to how he received money from the Pentagon then it was would've been best to just state so instead of saying my point was silly. Regardless, I still do not get how he justifies it under the presumption that the Pentagon is not "totalitarian"?

Secondly, the way you argued the other comrades makes me wonder if you yourself aren't arguing from the same idealist strain?

Third, this is all relatively off topic. I didn't want to smear the guy, just question some of the idealist liberalish stuff he has said before. The Pentagon comment is one, the use of the word totalitarian is another.

Are you missing the point, here Spectre? English? Do you speak it?

[~Spectre]

I never insinuated that he was somehow less credible for doing so, but that it was misguided to protest military funding to MIT during the Vietnam War, while also having his work used by the Pentagon.

His work is in linguistics. He cannot do anything about who applies his work to software.

I called your point silly because either you don't know what Chomsky actually works in, or you're not even taking this seriously enough to give your point a basic logical sniff test.



Look this is news to me, if you has some other info regarding as to how he received money from the Pentagon then it was would've been best to just state so instead of saying my point was silly. Regardless, I still do not get how he justifies it under the presumption that the Pentagon is not "totalitarian"?He was talking about working for MIT. The other guy clearly doesn't understand English, but you can do better. He's a tenured professor at MIT, so his argument is that taking the money is only a problem if he is in any way prevented from speaking his mind. Clearly he isn't.

[x359594]

...I still do not get how he justifies it under the presumption that the Pentagon is not "totalitarian"?...

Why not address all questions about what Chomsky thinks or is allegedly to have said or done directly to Chomsky himself?

He answers questions at his ZNet Blog: www.zcommunications.org/blog/noamchomsky .Also check http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm

[RadioRaheem84]

Why not address all questions about what Chomsky thinks or is allegedly to have said or done directly to Chomsky himself?

He answers questions at his ZNet Blog: www.zcommunications.org/blog/noamchomsky (http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/noamchomsky) .Also check http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm


How is it that you guys consider that I am somehow taking a stance that Chomsky is a useless "liberal". That is not the point and I never intended this to be the point. The point was whether the "liberalism" in some of the things Chomsky says is a result of liberalism embedded in his philosophy (which he admits it is) or the liberalism in Anarchism in general. An anarchist comrade referred to the former as a response. I agree.

I also do not share the sentiment that socialism came out of liberalism, but that both schools of thought do have their origin in the Enlightenment. And certainly Marxism and the works of Bakunin stripped a lot of the idealism out of the philosophy.



His work is in linguistics. He cannot do anything about who applies his work to software.

I called your point silly because either you don't know what Chomsky actually works in, or you're not even taking this seriously enough to give your point a basic logical sniff test.



Spectre, of course I knew that the the man's major work is in linguistics. I said that I understand that everything is tied to some sort of state funding, so I wasn't really lambasting him on that issue. This is mostly about his presuppositions.
Why would I even suggest that his famous political writings would be paid for by the Pentagon? The point was that he has criticized major elements of the Establishment, including universities, for their help in perpetuating the Pentagon to unleash war on the third world. I found it surprising that A.) he would use the word 'totalitarian' and B.) that he would not consider the Pentagon to be such an insitution and even C.) that his concept of both doesn't necessarily square with his class analysis view of why they wouldn't care to silence him.

[ContrarianLemming]

refering to Chomsky as a hypocrit because some of his work is funded by the state is no better then calling ourselves hypocrits because our computers were made by corporations.

also note: the above post noted chomsky use of the word liberal. Chomsky believes the ideas of revolutionary anarchism were directly decended from the enlightenment and liberalism, he believes the first real liberals were indeed socialists. When he says liberalism is in anarchism, he's not wrong here, he's not talking about american liberalism.

again people in this thread have been taking comments by chomsky without knowing what he's talking about.

[RadioRaheem84]

refering to Chomsky as a hypocrit because some of his work is funded by the state is no better then calling ourselves hypocrits because our computers were made by corporations.

also note: the above post noted chomsky use of the word liberal. Chomsky believes the ideas of revolutionary anarchism were directly decended from the enlightenment and liberalism, he believes the first real liberals were indeed socialists. When he says liberalism is in anarchism, he's not wrong here, he's not talking about american liberalism.

again people in this thread have been taking comments by chomsky without knowing what he's talking about.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call the first liberals, real socialists. I mean the ideological fathers like John Locke were not socialist. The point was the idealism of liberalism, some of it's presumptions in the primacy of the individual, bourgoise concepts of free speech, and host of other things that I find in Chomsky's works. This contrasts to the materialist, Marxist outlook that I find in someone like Parenti. I know Chomsky doesn't have much concern for Marx, but what is wrong with challenging some of the things Chomsky has said which, even he admits, are directly from the classical liberal school. Presuppositions that then conjur up a host of issues regarding free speech, his use of words like 'totalitarian', his concept of the economy, his view of Leninism?

Did I step on an idol's toes, here? Damn, read the initial post!

[RadioRaheem84]

Part of this stems from the fact that Chomsky's leftism is primarily philosophical, and neither practical nor even social scientific.

Having said that I find Chomsky's "anarchism" to be, well, very American. His views on economics tend to take a very definite second place to his views on concepts or values like "freedom", but paradoxically he is quite pragmatic in his polemics. Moreover his egalitarianism is rooted in the primacy of the individual.

This stems from the fact that Chomsky likely won't dispute the fact that he is a liberal. As fa2991 points out, Chomsky quite openly claims that his leftist views are the natural heir to Englightenment ideology

I think MarxShmarx had an excellent response (except I do not think that politically, Chomsky is a liberal). I do not want to say anymore for fear of people thinking that I am calling the man a political liberal ala Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman.

This is where I wanted the discussion to go. A discussion of the philosophical presuppositions of Chomsky's ideology and whether it can be said that socialism is somehow an heir to liberalism or what not. Idealism vs. Materialist perspectives in socialism, yada yada, etc.

[ContrarianLemming]

I don't know if I would go so far as to call the first liberals, real socialists. I mean the ideological fathers like John Locke were not socialist. The point was the idealism of liberalism, some of it's presumptions in the primacy of the individual, bourgoise concepts of free speech, and host of other things that I find in Chomsky's works. This contrasts to the materialist, Marxist outlook that I find in someone like Parenti. I know Chomsky doesn't have much concern for Marx, but what is wrong with challenging some of the things Chomsky has said which, even he admits, are directly from the classical liberal school. Presuppositions that then conjur up a host of issues regarding free speech, his use of words like 'totalitarian', his concept of the economy, his view of Leninism?


terms "individualism" and "collectivism" are words I can't really deal with, I stay away from that nonsense like the plague.

I haven't seen parenti directly talk about what free speech means to him
Theres nothing wrong with challenging what Chomsky said, however I'm challenging these challenges, which is also good. Dissent!

I prefer Parenti however, first because Parenti is a far more engaging speaker, he's very passionate, and second because Noam Chomsky has been repeating the same line about imperialism most of his life now. It's a very valid line, but can he really bring out another book detailing American imperialism? We get it Noam!

He needs to take it easy for once (http://www.theonion.com/articles/exhausted-noam-chomsky-just-going-to-try-and-enjoy,17404/)

I don't see what makes Chomsky a liberal, hes stated he believes in casls warfare, revolution, anarcho syndicalism, communal ownership, communism, what more do you want?

[RadioRaheem84]

terms "individualism" and "collectivism" are words I can't really deal with, I stay away from that nonsense like the plague.

I haven't seen parenti directly talk about what free speech means to him
Theres nothing wrong with challenging what Chomsky said, however I'm challenging these challenges, which is also good. Dissent!

I prefer Parenti however, first because Parenti is a far more engaging speaker, he's very passionate, and second because Noam Chomsky has been repeating the same line about imperialism most of his life now. It's a very valid line, but can he really bring out another book detailing American imperialism? We get it Noam!

He needs to take it easy for once (http://www.theonion.com/articles/exhausted-noam-chomsky-just-going-to-try-and-enjoy,17404/)

I don't see what makes Chomsky a liberal, hes stated he believes in casls warfare, revolution, anarcho syndicalism, communal ownership, communism, what more do you want?


Of course, Parenti, is a lot better. His speeches are what jumped started me from a radical "liberal" to a Marxist. He is unapologetic in his speeches and doesn't sugarcoat his message.

Comerade, his comments on free speech are very good:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/FreeSpeech.html

I do not mind the challenges to the idea that Noam Chomsky says some liberal things, but I do not want posts lobbied at me saying that I am calling Chomsky a useless liberal. I do not believe that and have stressed that in nearly every post. I was even cautious to stress that in the first one.

The point was always to deconstruct his presumptions about certain things he has said and whether this was do to an idealistic liberal philosophy or if there was any material social scientific basis to what he says sometimes. I think not, but you're more than welcome to disagree.


I don't see what makes Chomsky a liberal, hes stated he believes in casls warfare, revolution, anarcho syndicalism, communal ownership, communism, what more do you want?

When he says stuff like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt are libertarian socialists, at least from the way he reads them, it leads me to question just where is he getting his initial philosophy from, sometimes? And maybe that is what sometimes explains his departures from a materialist analyis of things. How could I think that he is actually a political liberal ala John Stewart or even Nader? I have read his work. I know he is not of that political persuasion.

[x359594]

How is it that you guys consider that I am somehow taking a stance that Chomsky is a useless "liberal"...

Sorry comrade, I wasn't clear. I thought that some questions addressed directly to Chomsky would elicit answers more reliable then second hand guesses made by others, myself included.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sorry comrade, I wasn't clear. I thought that some questions addressed directly to Chomsky would elicit answers more reliable then second hand guesses made by others, myself included.


No problem. :)

[Qayin]

Defending freedom of speech isn't bullshit you fucking loon.
Of a fascist.


He's not "loving either". In fact he's very critical of Kerry and states that the small difference is only significant because the U.S. is a powerful state. English, do you speak it?
Actually he regarded him lesser of the two evils.


He gets paid to teach and research linguistics. His work in linguistics wasn't done specifically for military language translation software, it was simply a ground breaking linguistic work, which has been adopted by software designers everywhere, and would still be used by people had he published it while employed by any other university.

Intellectual failure.
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext26/Chomsky.html

k

[~Spectre]

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext26/Chomsky.html

k

I've read that. Apparently you haven't :(.

It's exactly as has been stated in this thread: He published work on linguistics. That this has applications for computer software is absolutely irrelevant. That computer software is used by the military is absolutely irrelevant. That his work that is used by software designers, whose software may be used by the military, was published at MIT, is absolutely irrelevant.

[Revolution starts with U]

Of a fascist.




umm... i don't understand... why not?
Maybe I need to check the learning forums. I am new here.

[Apoi_Viitor]

umm... i don't understand... why not?
Maybe I need to check the learning forums. I am new here.


The argument is basically: No freedom for the enemies of freedom.

Which I agree with, as long as the "censorship" is done by communities/workers and not a Vanguard/Bureaucratic Elite.

As for Chomsky, I've always felt that he is, (as he claims), a libertarian socialist. Despite the accusations of him being a "liberal", I think they're unfounded - he has always advocated for leftism. The misconception, that Chomsky is a liberal, stems from his arguments for leftist ideology. He, rather cleverly, points out that common enlightenment ideas, such as "liberty", consent, autonomy, and democracy are non-existant in a capitalist society, and that anyone who supposedly supports these liberal ideas, should advocate for leftism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Which I agree with, as long as the "censorship" is done by communities/workers and not a Vanguard/Bureaucratic Elite. Like councils? Or perhaps committees like in Spanish Civil War?



The misconception, that Chomsky is a liberal, stems from his arguments for leftist ideology.Huh? The misconception that he might be a liberal stem from his rather idealist beliefs based in classical liberalism, which he freely admits. This isn't to say that he is liberal, but it makes sense as to why I find some rather strange notions in his writings. He just isn't a scientific materialist socialist.



He, rather cleverly, points out that common enlightenment ideas, such as "liberty", consent, autonomy, and democracy are non-existant in a capitalist society, and that anyone who supposedly supports these liberal ideas, should advocate for leftism. I think it might be the way he describes them himself. Again, in an idealist form. The Marxist Leninist conception seems less idealist and more practical to me, but that is just my opinion. When I hear Chomsky, I can see why other comrades think he is a liberal. It's still a misconception but not one where Chomsky fans should get so upset about. I don't think people are necessarily misreading him if he openly admits to being a direct inheritor of enlightenment classical liberal principles, and I don't believe that socialism came from liberalism (only that they share a common origin in the Enlightenment).

[Apoi_Viitor]

The argument I was trying to make, was that Chomsky is a leftist, but uses "liberal" arguments to back his leftism. Though, I realize now, that I was wrong.

I agree with you that socialism didn't come from liberalism. So, I think of Chomsky as being "ultra-leftist" or "infantile communist..." who advocates for a combination of liberalism and marxism.

[Revolution starts with U]

The argument is basically: No freedom for the enemies of freedom.

Which I agree with, as long as the "censorship" is done by communities/workers and not a Vanguard/Bureaucratic Elite.

.

And who decides who these "enemies of freedom" are? I agree that local communities can say "you can't say that here." But not that they can say "you can't say that."

Either way, I am new here. Leftist through and through, but I don't see why we would discount classical liberal concepts such as free expression, the rule of law, and government by consent (if we must have government at all).

[RadioRaheem84]

Tavarish Mike has a good description of liberalism in the 'liberal' thread. The point is that the liberal ideals are bit too idealist and not as practical as they may seem. I look at the pressuposition of things, the underlying philosophy behind classical liberalism and a lot it stems off of ruling class interests. At least that's what I see when I read Locke, Hobbes, Adam Smith, etc.

[Apoi_Viitor]

And who decides who these "enemies of freedom" are? I agree that local communities can say "you can't say that here." But not that they can say "you can't say that."

Either way, I am new here. Leftist through and through, but I don't see why we would discount classical liberal concepts such as free expression, the rule of law, and government by consent (if we must have government at all).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/leninists-maoists-etc-t139986/index.html

Read the last 3 or 4 pages.

I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue. At heart, I fully believe that - 'Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, but socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality'. Although, I certainly do see that it would be damn near impossible for a socialist revolution to take place, without some kinds of restrictions on those who advocate for bourgeois interests.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes. So we restrict freedom of expression, as some have claimed is just if those restricted are enemies of freedom. But then let us suppose the communist government in place starts to become tyrannical and exploitive... but now we cannot rise against them, because we thought only capitalists, fascists, and racists would be restricted.
I tend not to trust people that much, even my leftist bretheren.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Yes. So we restrict freedom of expression, as some have claimed is just if those restricted are enemies of freedom. But then let us suppose the communist government in place starts to become tyrannical and exploitive... but now we cannot rise against them, because we thought only capitalists, fascists, and racists would be restricted.
I tend not to trust people that much, even my leftist bretheren.

There's a difference between a dictatorship of the proletarian, and a dictatorship of bureaucrats.