Noam Chomsky on nonsense french intellecutals

[RGacky3]

OzrHwDOlTt8

Now people need to stop calling everything bourgeois.

[NewLeft]

I like how this thread is right above one by "Postmodern revolutionary.." :lol:

[Franz Fanonipants]

laffo chomsky says a thing

[tir1944]

Can anyone describe what exactly "postmodernism" is,in short?

[the Leftâ„¢]

Can anyone describe what exactly "postmodernism" is,in short?

One philosopher I have read affectionately refers to post-modernism as whatever the fuck you want it to be. Hope that helps!

[hatzel]

Can anyone describe what exactly "postmodernism" is,in short?

No. I mean, seriously...no...nobody could ever do that...except for maybe Lyotard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Lyotard)...

[Revolution starts with U]

Certain posters who consistently have nothing of substance to offer to any thread have found themselves on ignore. You can keep your delusions of grandeur. That's fine. I just won't see them anymore. Cheers :cool:

[Rafiq]

Because serious marxists actuually care about what chomsky sais.

[Scrooge]

Is this why I find reading Foucault to be so difficult?

[the Leftâ„¢]

Certain posters who consistently have nothing of substance to offer to any thread have found themselves on ignore. You can keep your delusions of grandeur. That's fine. I just won't see them anymore. Cheers :cool:

I'm not sure if this criticism applies to me personally or was directed as me personally but I'll at least identify with it and give my response another shot.

If what you have is modernity-- the contemporary so to speak, some idea of objective truths, claims about things-- like human reason being the vehicle to accomplish anything, post-modernity is a departure from this on the grounds that nothing can be shown to have an objective or inherent meaning.

For example. This comment is a response on a revolutionary leftist forum philosophy subsection in the modernist sense. Because you can prove that this is a comment, a revleft board, a philosophy subsection etc using objective commonalities.

In the POST-modernist sense, this comment is a pineapple because feelings are intrusive

[Meridian]

If what you have is modernity-- the contemporary so to speak, some idea of objective truths, claims about things-- like human reason being the vehicle to accomplish anything, post-modernity is a departure from this on the grounds that nothing can be shown to have an objective or inherent meaning.
It takes a distorted view of language to even understand what "objective or inherent meaning" is supposed to mean, divorcing language from human activity. Of course, the same screwed up view of language is required to postulate "subjective meaning" as well.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

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

[hatzel]

In the POST-modernist sense, this comment is a pineapple because feelings are intrusive

This constitutes a radical departure from factuality.

[the Leftâ„¢]

This constitutes a radical departure from factuality.

isnt that the gist of postmodernity tho?

[hatzel]

isnt that the gist of postmodernity tho?

I have not seen much said about pineapples, to be honest...

Anyway, the text offered exists contextually and is thus understood, precluding the possibility of it being a pineapple.

[the Leftâ„¢]

I have not seen much said about pineapples, to be honest...

Anyway, the text offered exists contextually and is thus understood, precluding the possibility of it being a pineapple.


Im honestly not sure if you are trolling or not. It exists contextually from a modernist frame of reference..

[∞]

Well Noam Chomsky is a scientist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Is this why I find reading Foucault to be so difficult?

lol what? foucault isn't hard to read.

[∞]

lol what? foucault isn't hard to read.

Its just pointless.

[RGacky3]

Because serious marxists actuually care about what chomsky sais.


Serious people care about what anyone says when they have an intelligent point.

But I get you don't listen to anyone without a sickle and hammer hat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

lol what? foucault isn't hard to read.If you try and read the original without learning French first, it's hard.

Getting a post-modernist to define post-modernism is about as hard as trying to get a Libertarian or Objectivity to explain how exactly their perfect form of capitalism could be achieved. It's possible to define specific examples or movements in post-modernism, but not the whole thing - but generally it's a rejection of objective truth. This could be in a nhilist form where nothing means anything, but generally it's the belief that meaning is subjective. In politics this plays out in viewing oppression and struggle as separate and sometimes competing.

Post-modernism has some insights, but I think Chomsky explains the problems perfectly. Their insights are generally shallow, impressionistic, and dressed up in a lot of impenetrable language and invented jargon. So to a certain extent, yeah, truth is subjective because something might be seen as "good" by capitalists but also may be seen as "bad" by workers and both views are correct subjectively. But you can't get published for saying "different people see things differently".

[Yuppie Grinder]

Post-modernism: Another word for the French being wankers.
Filthy cheese-eating surrender monkies.

[RGacky3]

Filthy cheese-eating surrender monkies.

BTW, I hate it when my fellow Americans shit on the french for being cowards or whatever, if you've ever seen the french do industrial action, vrs how Americans do it, the french working class have balls hugely larger than the American working class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Filthy cheese-eating surrender monkies.Intellectuals?

[Franz Fanonipants]

look dudes, i hate derrida et. al., but throwing out foucault is silly. the guy's main argument is that knowledge is historically constructed. that's basically it. at the generative center of that construction is a conflict between classes and identities (Foucault could be called un-Marxist here, as he admits there are non-class struggles, but its not really difficult to use Foucauldian method to look solely at class struggles).

[Apoi_Viitor]

look dudes, i hate derrida et. al., but throwing out foucault is silly. the guy's main argument is that knowledge is historically constructed. that's basically it. at the generative center of that construction is a conflict between classes and identities (Foucault could be called un-Marxist here, as he admits there are non-class struggles, but its not really difficult to use Foucauldian method to look solely at class struggles).

This is true. Chomsky actually points out in another interview that Foucualt is different from every other french intellectual, in that he actually has something to say.

[Franz Fanonipants]

thomas kuhn hate itt you guys

[Rafiq]

Serious people care about what anyone says when they have an intelligent point.

But I get you don't listen to anyone without a sickle and hammer hat.

I don't have any politically oriented clothing, headwear, jewlery or the likes. Not a tattoo or anything, either.

And Chomsky is Bourgreois

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't have any politically oriented clothing, headwear, jewlery or the likes. Not a tattoo or anything, either.

And Chomsky is Bourgreois

well played i take back making fun of you for halloween

E: chomsky is fucking terrible

[pastradamus]

look dudes, i hate derrida et. al., but throwing out foucault is silly. the guy's main argument is that knowledge is historically constructed. that's basically it. at the generative center of that construction is a conflict between classes and identities (Foucault could be called un-Marxist here, as he admits there are non-class struggles, but its not really difficult to use Foucauldian method to look solely at class struggles).

Good point.

I wouldn't call Foucault a post-structuralist or post-modernist at all.

He wasn't at all like the others in the postmodern group. His views varied so differently with relation to different topics that, in my opinion at least, it was very difficult to pin-down exactly what philosophy he did follow. He absolutely hated it when people called him a post-modernist and that should be enough to dismiss him from that category.

Foucault was not a Marxist, neither was Freud, Nietzsche, Sartre or Kant. But that does not mean that at least some of what they say or indeed think is not worth pondering about.

Marxism isn't a religion and the communist manifesto is not a bible. Marx must be criticised as much as every other philosopher and then it is up to the individual to decide which he/she likes and dislikes. I personally am a Marxist but I would not totally ever dismiss a philosopher completely without reading about them. There is only one philosopher that I can think of off-hand that I 100% reject in every way and that is Milton Friedman (I dont simply consider him an economist).

[RadioRaheem84]

There is only one philosopher that I can think of off-hand that I 100% reject in every way and that is Milton Friedman (I dont simply consider him an economist).

What would you consider him then if not an economist?

[pastradamus]

What would you consider him then if not an economist?


I do consider him an Economist. I also consider him to have have invented a sort of economic-philosophy (for want of a better description). His economic invention became a philosophy to many on the right. The likes of Reagan, Bush, Obama and Blair all seem to have embraced, to some degree, his economic principles and to seem to follow it philosophically, as a Marxist would follow Marxian economics.

His theories of mass privitisation, Market-share theory, support for the federal reserve system etc... are today responsible for the most rapacious economic philosophies around the world today.

I suppose what Im saying is that, despite not being a philosopher himself, he created a philosophy in the minds of others.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, of course, his economics is based on a series of presupposed nonsense.

[Yuppie Grinder]

BTW, I hate it when my fellow Americans shit on the french for being cowards or whatever, if you've ever seen the french do industrial action, vrs how Americans do it, the french working class have balls hugely larger than the American working class.
It was a simpson's reference, not at all serious.

[Franz Fanonipants]

and really dudes, Saussure (on semiotics) and Tom Kuhn are pretty alright too.

[Dragonaut]

And Chomsky is Bourgreois

Is he really "Bourgeois" or do you just not agree with him? I disagree with a lot of his views on Marxism, but I don't see why he should be labeled "liberal" or "Bourgeois" considering that he supports revolutionary anarchism/libertarian socialism.

[Art Vandelay]

Is he really "Bourgeois" or do you just not agree with him? I disagree with a lot of his views on Marxism, but I don't see why he should be labeled "liberal" or "Bourgeois" considering that he supports revolutionary anarchism/libertarian socialism.

I think it probably stems from the fact that he has reinvested his capital into stock markets, not necessarily worker friendly stocks as well, to save money for his family. The point is moot however, Engels was a capitalist, Marx lived and supported his family, in part, off of surplus value created by and extracted from workers. My family is bourgeois, but that does not change my commitment to proletarian revolution. Communism is not a lifestyle choice.

[RGacky3]

(Foucault could be called un-Marxist here, as he admits there are non-class struggles, but its not really difficult to use Foucauldian method to look solely at class struggles).

I don't think thats un marxist at all, to say there other other struggles other than class, Marx juts focused on the class aspect.


I don't have any politically oriented clothing, headwear, jewlery or the likes. Not a tattoo or anything, either.

And Chomsky is Bourgreois

Bourgeois, the way your using it, just means, "I don't agree with him."


I think it probably stems from the fact that he has reinvested his capital into stock markets, not necessarily worker friendly stocks as well, to save money for his family.

Thats the same bullshit argument that people argue to say that all workers are capitalists too if they have private pensions. Owning stock does'nt make you bourgeois.

[Jimmie Higgins]

look dudes, i hate derrida et. al., but throwing out foucault is silly. the guy's main argument is that knowledge is historically constructed. that's basically it. at the generative center of that construction is a conflict between classes and identities (Foucault could be called un-Marxist here, as he admits there are non-class struggles, but its not really difficult to use Foucauldian method to look solely at class struggles).

True, I think many of these thinkers probably have useful insights into some things just as I dislike the theory behind some post-modern art but that doesn't mean that there aren't really interesting works produced sometimes. The general problem with the theories is sifting through a lot of abstractions and some post-modern assumption in order to get at the kernal.

[Postmodern Revolutionary]

Noam Chomsky: One of the last remaining legacies of the aged modernist view.

[L.A.P.]

Foucault was not a Marxist, neither was Freud, Nietzsche, Sartre or Kant

I don't know about that, Sartre not only was influenced by Marx philosophically but he was a politically active communist.

"Our ultimate goal is to overthrow bourgeois society"
-Jean-Paul Sartre

[Rafiq]

Bourgeois, the way your using it, just means, "I don't agree with him."


No, it means calling a man who

1. Vehemently asserts reformism is the only way

2. Tries to cozy up to Liberals, make them feel comfortable

3. His analysis of current events, of Imperialism, of Capitalism (he doesn't even call it that :rolleyes:) are 100% Idealist and antimarxist (Idealism is the philosophical core of the cultural bourgeoisie)

4. And last but not least his 100% Moralism and Bourgeois Morality. He has no understanding of any kind of economics, and the basis for all of his views are completely moralistic. He's a self declared conservative and an enthusiast in universal morality. And even worse, he isn't even a moralist in the sense that anarchsits are, he's a Bourgeois Moralist, he takes Bourgeois morals, agrees with them, and formulates an argument against something he opposes with them. He adheres to the classical liberal method, and their termonology (HUR HUR We aren't living in capitalism!).


I mean Free Market economists, Bourgeois economists are people I have much more sympathy toward, because at least they don't have their head in their ass and have a decent (somewhat) Materialist grasp on things.

But in all they're all clowns.

[Rafiq]

Noam Chomsky: One of the last remaining legacies of the aged modernist view.

Most of chomsky's revolutionary views were tossed down the shitter after the reactionary period of 1985ish-2000's (early).

[Belleraphone]

Most of chomsky's revolutionary views were tossed down the shitter after the reactionary period of 1985ish-2000's (early).
No they weren't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y
Sept 7nth, 2011.

If you mean to say that Chomsky stopped talking about political theory and switched more to foriegn policy, then yeah, but I think that's because Reagan came along and increased American imperialism by ten fold.

[pastradamus]

I don't know about that, Sartre not only was influenced by Marx philosophically but he was a politically active communist.

"Our ultimate goal is to overthrow bourgeois society"
-Jean-Paul Sartre


He described Marxism as being very flawed but also as being the best suitable situation in a grim world.

Im not really a fan of Sartre to be honest. The whole suicide thing is a right turn off.

[RGacky3]

1. Vehemently asserts reformism is the only way


A: Not chomsky,
B: Not the definition of bourgeouis.


2. Tries to cozy up to Liberals, make them feel comfortable


A: Not at all Chomsky
B: Not the definition of bourgeoius


3. His analysis of current events, of Imperialism, of Capitalism (he doesn't even call it that :rolleyes:) are 100% Idealist and antimarxist (Idealism is the philosophical core of the cultural bourgeoisie)


What the hell do you mean by idealist? What does that mean? Infact a lot of the philisophical basis of liberal and classical ideas came from philosophical empiricism and materialism.

So thats totally arbitrary, I don't know what you mean


4. And last but not least his 100% Moralism and Bourgeois Morality. He has no understanding of any kind of economics, and the basis for all of his views are completely moralistic. He's a self declared conservative and an enthusiast in universal morality. And even worse, he isn't even a moralist in the sense that anarchsits are, he's a Bourgeois Moralist, he takes Bourgeois morals, agrees with them, and formulates an argument against something he opposes with them. He adheres to the classical liberal method, and their termonology (HUR HUR We aren't living in capitalism!).


EVERY LEFTIST is a moralist, not only that, but Chomsky, if you payed any attention, is'nt appealing to morality, his critiquing the ruling class using their own morality.

He's a self declared conservative in the classical sense, a sense which you have obviously no idea what it means.

YOu know who was a Moralist? Karl Marx.

Bourgeois morals are meaningless, what are they? How are they different from proletarian morals.

Karl Marx adhered to the liberal method and terminology ...

[Rafiq]

http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/sisko-facepalm.jpg

Look Gacky, I know you're no fool. But as much as you are good with economics, you're far from understanding a tad bit of philosophy and of Karl Marx himself. I mean, you don't even know what Moralism is.

And every Leftist is a moralist?


Idealists of all schools, aristocrats and bourgeois, theologians and metaphysicians, politicians and moralists, religionists, philosophers, or poets, not forgetting the liberal economists - unbounded worshippers of the ideal, as we know - are much offended when told that man, with his magnificent intelligence, his sublime ideas, and his boundless aspirations, is, like all else existing in the world, nothing but matter, only a product of vile matter.

- Bakunin, god and state.

This was from BAKUNIN, who was one of the more moralist figures of the radical left. And you think Marx was a moralist? '

I don't think you know what Bourgeois is as an adjective that could be applied culturally.

Bourgeois morals are intertwined with Property Rights, conservativism (Chomsky is a conservative) Religious dogma, but most of all, of Universal Morality.

I can't call you anti materialist because I don't think you know what that even means.

[RGacky3]

Idealists of all schools, aristocrats and bourgeois, theologians and metaphysicians, politicians and moralists, religionists, philosophers, or poets, not forgetting the liberal economists - unbounded worshippers of the ideal, as we know - are much offended when told that man, with his magnificent intelligence, his sublime ideas, and his boundless aspirations, is, like all else existing in the world, nothing but matter, only a product of vile matter.

Thats a conflict between idealism/duelism (that we have minds independant of matter), and materialism (that there is no mind independant of matter).

Karl Marx makes plenty of ethical judgements, all based on the enlightenment, such as the ideal of democracy, an economy that is best for all, and so on.

Infact the whole basis of economics is based on ethical judgements.


I can't call you anti materialist because I don't think you know what that even means.

A materialist is someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical world, when it comes to philosophy I'm not sure, I don't know if there are independant minds, I do believe in a non-material God.

Now if your talking about materialism in economics, then no, I don't know what you mean by that.


Bourgeois morals are intertwined with Property Rights, conservativism (Chomsky is a conservative) Religious dogma, but most of all, of Universal Morality.


Chomsky is not pro-property rights, conservatism is not a single ideology but has changed over and over again (chomsky calls himself a classical conservative), although also technically liberalism is bourgeois.

Religious dogma is by no means a bourgeois concept, infact christianity started out as an anti-ruling class, and anti-religious authority movement, religion is not inherently class based, although many times it is.

Universal morality is also not inherently bourgeois, its existed all over history in all types of societies, even classless ones, also Chomsky IS NOT a universal moralist, your missing the context of his arguments, he is not saying something is right or wrong, he is saying that IF you are going to claim to have that morality, you must also apply it to other places lest you be a hypocrite.

All of chomskys are arguments against Capitalist society, is taking ethical values which pro-capitalists claim to hold and showing that they are hypocritical, thats not claiming a univeral morality.


Look Gacky, I know you're no fool. But as much as you are good with economics, you're far from understanding a tad bit of philosophy and of Karl Marx himself. I mean, you don't even know what Moralism is.


I appreciate that, I'm not at all an expert on philosophy or even Marxian philosophy.

My problem is when you start applying metaphysical philosophy to economics, it muddles things up.

Also using the word Bourgeois as an adjective is misleading, first you have to make a systemic connection that a certain idea comes from the bourgeois institution (not from epople that are bourgeois, but from the bourgeois as an institution), and even if it does, there is nothing, other than the name, that implies its negative. When that word is used its usually used the same way "communism" is used by the right wing, as nothing more than a curse word.