Noam Chomsky

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

what is the consensus on noam chomsky here, especially interested in hearing from the right wing cappies, thanx

[Delta]

I generally view his expertise to be anti-US foreign policy, and I think he's pretty good with that.

[Black Dagger]

Very knowledgeable guy, can be a bit dry at times, but he's still a good speaker. The only thing of his that i've heard that i didnt really like was his suggestion that people should vote for Kerry as the 'lesser of two evils' - for an anarchist to advocate participating in the bourgeois electoral process is pretty fucked up.

[theraven]

he should stick to lingusitics.

[Tungsten]

His notes on linguistics are actually well worth a read.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:38 PM
His notes on linguistics are actually well worth a read.
I've heard that-to bad he pushes out so much politiacl crap.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:36 AM
he should stick to lingusitics.
Why?

[Connolly]

Iv read one of his books (at least half of one) and found his writing style rubbish, and, as Black Dagger said, just plain dry.

Iv read one book by Tom Hanahoe, I found more information on one page of his "America Rules" than a whole chapter of Chomsky.

Overall - I like the guy - good speaker.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 11 2006, 05:49 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 11 2006, 05:49 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 03:36 AM
he should stick to lingusitics.
Why? [/b]
because thats something he understands.

[Abolish Communism]

Idiot.

[Zero]

Chomsky is one of the greatest political speakers of our time in my opinion. Though its true that he can be a bit dry at times. I prefer Zinn.

[Andy Bowden]

He does make some well-researched, devastating criticism of US policy - but when it comes down to what to do to change it he advocates voting for people like Kerry.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:38 PM
His notes on linguistics are actually well worth a read.
Some of his notes on linguistics are a little shit. Parts of his 'innateness theory' leave something to be dersired. Overall though I would agree with you.

His politics are a little too rooted in 'America is the great satan' type thinking, but he does have some fairly good critisiscms of capitalism.

[Janus]

His contributions to linguisitics and language theory such as the language acquisition device are quite important and influential.

[Jazzratt]

Very much so. He has definatley helped progress our understanding of language. But like all acedemics he is not infallable - same goes for his politics.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 11 2006, 07:04 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 11 2006, 07:04 PM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2006, 05:49 PM

[email protected] 12 2006, 03:36 AM
he should stick to lingusitics.
Why?
because thats something he understands. [/b]
so you understand politics better than him huh

[theraven]

Originally posted by Marmot+Jul 11 2006, 07:54 PM--> (Marmot @ Jul 11 2006, 07:54 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2006, 05:49 PM

[email protected] 12 2006, 03:36 AM
he should stick to lingusitics.
Why?
because thats something he understands.
so you understand politics better than him huh [/b]
I am not sure, but what i have heard doesn't speak well for him in that regard.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 11 2006, 08:26 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 11 2006, 08:26 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 07:54 PM

so you understand politics better than him huh
I am not sure, but what i have heard doesn't speak well for him in that regard. [/b]
I think what you meant to say is: "I am not sure, but from what I've heard he disagrees with my viewpoint." Have some honesty my man.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

If I was drunk, Chomsky's age, and a woman, we'd see a new generation of Chomsky's.

-Alex

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Let me guess, Chomsky is too conservative or too bourgeoise for all of you?

Or perhaps, not leftist enough?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Chomsky does need to be more leftist in certain areas. However, my main criticism of Chomsky is his a priori criticisms of certain things (ie. Derrida). On top of that, his political theory is lacking in many areas (advocating reformist efforts such as voting). Overall, I enjoy Chomsky's works as they are excellent leftist criticisms of current and past procedures. As mentioned earlier, political theory (what to do now and in the future) is where he lacks insight and developed works.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 11 2006, 08:28 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 11 2006, 08:28 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:26 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 07:54 PM

so you understand politics better than him huh
I am not sure, but what i have heard doesn't speak well for him in that regard.
I think what you meant to say is: "I am not sure, but from what I've heard he disagrees with my viewpoint." Have some honesty my man. [/b]
No, i meant what I said. there are intellegent liberals. i dunno bout intellegetn commies (or at least politically intellegent) though.

olive tree: chomsys a man....

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:22 PM

No, i meant what I said. there are intellegent liberals. i dunno bout intellegetn commies (or at least politically intellegent) though.

Coming from someone who is still unable to capitalise letters and can't even spell intelligent, I think most people will take that with a grain of salt. After all, you're no Dorothy Parker.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jul 11 2006, 09:28 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jul 11 2006, 09:28 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 09:22 PM

No, i meant what I said. there are intellegent liberals. i dunno bout intellegetn commies (or at least politically intellegent) though.

Coming from someone who is still unable to capitalise letters and can't even spell intelligent, I think most people will take that with a grain of salt. After all, you're no Dorothy Parker. [/b]
I'llve you that..i am no female screenplay writeer from the 30s...

[Amusing Scrotum]

You&#39;re not someone who can string together a coherent sentence either, but we all need to aspire to something. <_<

[Marion]

Personally am a fan of Chomsky.

However, he mentions frequently that people in the States should concentrate on acts undertaken by the USA as a) this is what they have responsibility for (e.g. through paying taxes) and b) this is where they can effect change the easiest. While I&#39;d agree to a large extent, I think this practically can lead to Chomsky over-focussing on the US government. As a result, there is less commentary on the problems of other regimes or capitalism as a global phenomenon. For example, he publically called the PLO terrorists at a meeting in the 80&#39;s, but doesn&#39;t do this very often and so it often appears that he only ever criticises one side. In addition, solely advocating this approach runs the risk that inspiring visions outside the US (or wherever) can get missed.

The other thing that really annoys me is how every single book he writes has to mention the US mining the harbours in Nicaragua. The fact the US were effectively condemned for international terrorism as a result is a very good point, but does it have to go in EVERY book he writes?? I&#39;m sure there&#39;s paragraphs in his linguistic works that begin "To understand the rejection of behaviourist views of language acquisition, one has to comprehend the World Court judgement against the US in relation to its mining of international waters blah blah blah...".

Personally I don&#39;t really think his writing is that dry at all (certainly not compared to half the theoreticians etc mentioned on this site). His speeches are pretty dull though IMHO, but am sure he&#39;s quite relatively OK with it being this way.

[LSD]

Chomsky&#39;s contributions to linguistics are nothing short of irreplacable. He is probably the most important linguist of the past 50 years, possibly of all time.

In terms of politics, he tends to be a tad one note, but that note is a useful one. His criticisms of US policy may be "dry&#39;, but they are all the more powerful because of it.

When it comes to thought-out, reasoned, and referenced attacks on the US< Chomsky is unparalleled in academia. His opponents really have no choice but to resort to ad hominmen and non sequitur because his arguments really are that good.

When it gets into more contructivist areas, however, he tends to falter. For one thing, he doesn&#39;t really seem to actually have a consistant paradigm on sociopolitical matters. His foreign policy ideas are quite clear, but his views on domestic or even general socioeconomics are beyond vague. Sometimes he calls himself an "anarchist" (although moreoften it is others who call him so), but if he is, his particular branch of "anarchism" is like nothing I&#39;ve ever encountered.

As has been mentioned in this thread, he has promoted voting as a valid political option; and, indeed, he often makes it a point of praising the bourgeois state as especially "free" and "democratic". He even seems to have a latently nationalistic "patriotism" with regards to the United States.

Frankly, I&#39;d say that the man has no real conception of class politics. That doesn&#39;t mean that he can&#39;t be eminmently useful; it just means that he&#39;s not really a part of the revolutionary left.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

As has been mentioned in this thread, he has promoted voting as a valid political option; and, indeed,

So how else were you suppose to kick Bush out of office? Shooting him in the head? Was Chomsky suppose to advocate that in order to win brownie points from communists like yourself?



He even seems to have a latently nationalistic "patriotism" with regards to the United States.

That was too funny. Thanks for the laugh.



Frankly, I&#39;d say that the man has no real conception of class politics.

Noam Chomsky. Class War: The Attack on Working People (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000DFW0/103-2017936-9975820?v=glance&n=5174)

[Abolish Communism]

The question posed by the one who began this thread was


what is the consensus on noam chomsky here, especially interested in hearing from the right wing cappies, thanx

To which I replied, as was my contribution, that Noam is an idiot.

Armchair Socialism gave me a warning point for spamming.

That wasn&#39;t spam, that was my reply. I stand by it:

Noam Chomsky is an idiot.

If you are a man, you&#39;ll take back my point.

And here are, in this same thread, Armchair&#39;s "valuable, non-spam" comments:


You&#39;re not someone who can string together a coherent sentence either, but we all need to aspire to something.

and


Coming from someone who is still unable to capitalise letters and can&#39;t even spell intelligent, I think most people will take that with a grain of salt. After all, you&#39;re no Dorothy Parker.

And these comments relate to Chomsky because???&#33;&#33;&#33;...

Hellllloooo?&#33;? Armchair, are you out there? Do you have a clue how stupid you look penalizing me for answering what was asked while, yourself, making freak comments as you please.

:o

[Andy Bowden]

That was too funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Well he does think the USA is the freest nation on earth :blink:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 11 2006, 11:16 PM
The question posed by the one who began this thread was


what is the consensus on noam chomsky here, especially interested in hearing from the right wing cappies, thanx

To which I replied, as was my contribution, that Noam is an idiot.

Armchair Socialism gave me a warning point for spamming.

That wasn&#39;t spam, that was my reply. I stand by it:

Noam Chomsky is an idiot.

If you are a man, you&#39;ll take back my point.
Not that it&#39;s really my place, but you really fucking irritate me so I&#39;ll let rip anyway:

You posted one word, fucknut. One fucking word, not anything to back it up, no real context - one fucking word. That sounds like spam to me because if it weren&#39;t spam you would have at least been bothered to quote the first post or introduce "Noam chomsky is a" to your retarded post.

On grounds relating to your opinion: What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have no apprecitian for the genius of most of his linguistic theories? Or are you just pissed off that he doesn&#39;t support every ****ing thing America does. Fucking cretin.

As for your examples of Armchair&#39;s posts: He was mocking somone in an argument and using more than one fucking word. No one is under any obligation to be nice to you backward fucking cappies and thus taking the piss does not constitutespam. YOu fail. Try again arse candle.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:20 PM
Chomsky is one of the greatest political speakers of our time in my opinion.

The man praised The United States&#39;s civil liberties and deemed it the greatest country on earth&#33;

Here we see the true liberal nature of anarchists.
Noam Chomsky is a joke&#33; At least as far as we&#39;re talking about revolutionary politics. He makes a decent criticism of imperialism and that&#39;s it. What are his solutions? Speaking at anti-WTO rallies and voting Democrat? Give me a fucking break. Is this your definition of anarchist activism? If Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, then I&#39;m Bakunin.

Howard Zinn wrote a couple of good history books. But he&#39;s a naive and shallow liberal. What does he do? Write for some bourgeois rags like The Progressive? Negro, please.

Their criticism of imperialism and foreign affairs are generally right on. But in the end, these guys are not a part of our movement. They&#39;ve never threatened or even spoken against the basic priciples of liberalism, as established by the United States governemnt.

I only read up to this post to which I am replying. Any criticisms your capitalists wanna throw at Chomsky, Zinn, or any other Democrat are welcome.

[Amusing Scrotum]

@Abolish Communism

Jazzratt has already brought up the reasons why I warned you, but I&#39;ll go over them again just for your pleasure.

To start with, as Jazzratt mentioned, there was no real context to your comment. You didn&#39;t quote the original question, nor did you say something like "in my opinion, Chomsky&#39;s an idiot"....instead you just simply wrote "Idiot." And, for all I know, that comment could be a direct flame against the poster who made the post immediately above yours....theraven as it happens.

Now, in one sense, you could probably have brought me up on a technicality if that had been the primary reason I used for warning you. That is, technically, the warning would have been for flaming....and not spamming. However, as I pointed out to you, I warned you because, and to use my exact words, you didn&#39;t "try to contribute to [the] discussion".

That is, in reality, your comment lacked any insight, was irrelevant, the context could not be properly ascertained and in no sense did it facilitate further discussion on the issue. Essentially, it is what is termed an "unneeded message"....and this is one of the attributes of forum spam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_spam).

If you want to make this into an "issue", then that, of course, is your choice....but you won&#39;t find many serious political discussion boards that allow the posting of such pointless and meaningless remarks. And, as a check of your warning record will show, this is not the first time you&#39;ve been warned for spamming....so, in my opinion, if you find the rigours of serious debate to draining, then I suggest you leave this board. Because, in no way is this board going to degrade itself to the level of an internet chat room.


Originally posted by Abolish Communism+--> (Abolish Communism)If you are a man, you&#39;ll take back my point.[/b]

Hey, come on, why not measure "manhood" in the good old fashioned way. Shall I bring the tape measure or will you?

Additionally, your challenge of my "manhood" is really fucking lame. I mean, I&#39;m more than content with my "manhood", my sexual orientation(s), my physical appearance and so on....and as is often the case, the line of argument reveals more about the arguer. That is, the type of people who make this sort of comment, often happen to be pug-faced little ****s who&#39;s palms are blistered from their constant masturbation....and I doubt you break the mould.


Originally posted by Abolish [email protected]
And these comments relate to Chomsky because???&#33;&#33;&#33;...

They&#39;re not. They are, instead, arguments against arguments posted in this thread by the people discussing Chomsky. They weren&#39;t, in any sense, "unneeded messages"; rather, they were direct rebuttals. And the observant reader will note that my posts were 17 and 33 times longer than your comment.


RedZeppelin
Here we see the true liberal nature of anarchists.

More like the "true liberal nature" of social liberals. I mean, considering that the Marxist paradigm has been associated with "revolutionary organisations" like the Fabian Society, one would think that self-described Marxists would have a degree of modesty here. Yet, somewhat curiously, they don&#39;t.

[theraven]

They&#39;re not. They are, instead, arguments against arguments posted in this thread by the people discussing Chomsky. They weren&#39;t, in any sense, "unneeded messages"; rather, they were direct rebuttals. And the observant reader will note that my posts were 17 and 33 times longer than your comment.

thats what passes for a "direct" response for you? comparing posters to obsecure 1930s screen writers?

[Mujer Libre]

I really appreciate how academically rigorous his books are, and he&#39;s a good speaker. There&#39;s actually a lot of dry wit in his writing, but the academic style and economy of his language makes them hard reading.

Some things do bug me though, like the election thing and the fact that he supports free speech for everyone, even fascist-types. I think that&#39;s a bit unrealistic.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "RedZeppelin"
The man praised The United States&#39;s civil liberties and deemed it the greatest country on earth&#33;

Here we see the true liberal nature of anarchists.
Noam Chomsky is a joke&#33; At least as far as we&#39;re talking about revolutionary politics. He makes a decent criticism of imperialism and that&#39;s it. What are his solutions? Speaking at anti-WTO rallies and voting Democrat? Give me a fucking break. Is this your definition of anarchist activism? If Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, then I&#39;m Bakunin.

Howard Zinn wrote a couple of good history books. But he&#39;s a naive and shallow liberal. What does he do? Write for some bourgeois rags like The Progressive? Negro, please.

Their criticism of imperialism and foreign affairs are generally right on. But in the end, these guys are not a part of our movement. They&#39;ve never threatened or even spoken against the basic priciples of liberalism, as established by the United States governemnt.

I only read up to this post to which I am replying. Any criticisms your capitalists wanna throw at Chomsky, Zinn, or any other Democrat are welcome.

Your right, unless my views are completely and totally in line with another person I cannot like them. In fact, I must label them as a &#39;Reactionary pig-fucking horse wench&#33;&#39;

I enjoy listening to Chomsky because I like to listen to progressive people of all different ideologies. I love chatting with Greens and Reformists, and I generally agree with them&#33; :o I guess that means I cant be an Anarchist&#33; :o I guess I have to go back to my gulag :( .

[Marion]

Thanks very much for posting your views LSD.

Chomsky&#39;s pretty clear that he sees anarchism as a rejection of "unjust authority" (if I remember his quote right). However, he doesn&#39;t really deal with the question of what makes an authority just or unjust to the best of my memory though.

He doesn&#39;t really go into how to get to an anarchist society in detail either. I think this is partly as he has a lot of faith that people can work this out themselves in the course of events, as sociology doesn&#39;t have anything like a decent track record of predicting this type of thing (which is fair enough) and that any models that anyone tries to come up with are relatively useless. Personally I&#39;m a lot happier with this type of approach than with people who claim spurious scientific legitimacy for their reading of the infinitely complex thing that is human society (not that its necessarily an either/or, of course). In terms of anarchism, Chomsky also repeatedly praises Rudolf Rocker, going so far as to say that no-one&#39;s really come up with anything new since him.

I think the main difficulty is Chomsky&#39;s reformism. He argues, for example, that you should try and effect change within the current legal system but that you&#39;ll often come up against the impossibility of change within that system and that, as a result, you may then have to act illegally. However, what are the effects of this in practice? I think the proposed Kerry vote can be seen as a parallel. In his piece there was no discussion of the effect that engaging in the system could have in terms of strengthening it (from a traditional anarchist point of view) or even the extent to which backing Kerry merely carried on corrupt two-party politics (from a liberal perspective). He&#39;s quite rightly open to loads of criticism as a result.

Anyone got any particular references for his praise for the bourgeios state or his patriotism towards the USA?

PS Given that general political classifications tend to be fairly broad, am not sure how Chomsky shows "the true liberal nature of anarchists" any more than Bernstein shows the bourgeois nature of Marxism or early Negri shows the workerist nature of autonomist Marxism or Big Macs shows the disgusting nature of all food that is cooked quickly or blah blah blah.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 11 2006, 09:43 PM
More like the "true liberal nature" of social liberals. I mean, considering that the Marxist paradigm has been associated with "revolutionary organisations" like the Fabian Society, one would think that self-described Marxists would have a degree of modesty here. Yet, somewhat curiously, they don&#39;t.
This shit doesn&#39;t even make sense.
Why don&#39;t you just go outright and say, "I&#39;m a liberal, and so are some other self-proclaimed Marxists."?

Social liberalism? Yeah sure... maybe in a post-revolutionary society. But not when you&#39;re supposedly a revolutionary political figure. "Revolutionary" means that you work for the overthrow of the establishment. It means you&#39;re an enemy of the status-quo. Working-class revolution is an authoritarian measure undertaken by the proletariat against their oppressors. Social liberalism doesn&#39;t fit anywhere in this paradigm, I&#39;m afraid.

How in the fuck was the fabian society a revolutionary organization? They were openly reformist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+--> (RedZeppelin)But not when you&#39;re supposedly a revolutionary political figure.[/b]

That&#39;s the point though, I&#39;m not aware of Chomsky ever claiming to be a revolutionary....and in terms of his economic outlook, I&#39;ve never heard him say that he&#39;s particularly interested in this or that strand of anarchism. Indeed, off the top of my head, the only economic models I&#39;ve heard him sort of praise, are a "Marxist" one, one which centers around National self-determination and, recently, one which involves the State funding private enterprise.

So, essentially, your comment was pretty daft. That is, you said that Chomsky showed the "true liberal nature of anarchists" and, yet, for some reason, you seem not to realise that if that "logic" was applied to Marxism, then the "true nature" of it would be rather different. I mean, from say 1900-1980, there were likely more social-democrats who considered themselves Marxists than revolutionaries....and that you overlook this when try to make your cheap and opportunistic points, is rather laughable.


RedZeppelin
How in the fuck was the fabian society a revolutionary organization? They were openly reformist.

That&#39;s the point. If Chomsky shows "the true liberal nature of anarchists", then the Fabian Society should be able to show "the true reformist nature of Marxism". It&#39;s not that my "shit doesn&#39;t even make sense", it&#39;s that your logic is useless.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by AS
That&#39;s the point though, I&#39;m not aware of Chomsky ever claiming to be a revolutionary....and in terms of his economic outlook, I&#39;ve never heard him say that he&#39;s particularly interested in this or that strand of anarchism

Chomsky is very much an anarchist, he&#39;s spoken specifically on the topic of anarchism (as an advocate) several times (i&#39;m listening to one of his talks at the moment&#33;) - he emphasis on abolishing hierarchy, workers&#39; self-management, federations etc.

And as far as his &#39;revolutionary&#39; cred, i think he is made a valuable contributions in terms of our understanding of how the state, and media function, and also as an eloquent advocate of anarchist ideas more generally. He may be an intellectual, but i dont he&#39;s ever pretended to be anything but.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jul 12 2006, 11:00 AM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Jul 12 2006, 11:00 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
But not when you&#39;re supposedly a revolutionary political figure.

That&#39;s the point though, I&#39;m not aware of Chomsky ever claiming to be a revolutionary....and in terms of his economic outlook, I&#39;ve never heard him say that he&#39;s particularly interested in this or that strand of anarchism. Indeed, off the top of my head, the only economic models I&#39;ve heard him sort of praise, are a "Marxist" one, one which centers around National self-determination and, recently, one which involves the State funding private enterprise.

So, essentially, your comment was pretty daft. That is, you said that Chomsky showed the "true liberal nature of anarchists" and, yet, for some reason, you seem not to realise that if that "logic" was applied to Marxism, then the "true nature" of it would be rather different. I mean, from say 1900-1980, there were likely more social-democrats who considered themselves Marxists than revolutionaries....and that you overlook this when try to make your cheap and opportunistic points, is rather laughable.


RedZeppelin
How in the fuck was the fabian society a revolutionary organization? They were openly reformist.

That&#39;s the point. If Chomsky shows "the true liberal nature of anarchists", then the Fabian Society should be able to show "the true reformist nature of Marxism". It&#39;s not that my "shit doesn&#39;t even make sense", it&#39;s that your logic is useless. [/b]
there&#39;s been a missunderstanding here
I meant that zero&#39;s admiration for chomsky demosntrated the liberal nature of his own "anarchist" ideology

[Eleutherios]

Ignore this post. Everything that was previously here has already been said. Next time I&#39;ll read the whole thread before I butt in...

[Zero]

So suddenly my preferred ideology dictates who I can agree with and who I can dissagree with?

Jeez, I wish I hadden&#39;t said anything. :blink:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:05 PM
Jeez, I wish I hadden&#39;t said anything. :blink:
next time don&#39;t

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+--> (Black Dagger)Chomsky is very much an anarchist, he&#39;s spoken specifically on the topic of anarchism (as an advocate) several times....[/b]

Oh.

That surprised me a bit because, as I said above, I&#39;ve never read or heard him propose a specifically anarchist/communist economic system. I know he&#39;s dabbled a bit in anarchism, but I&#39;m not aware of him specifically saying "I am an X and I support Y"....so I just assumed his exact politics were unknown.


Originally posted by [email protected]
there&#39;s been a missunderstanding here

Ok.


RedZeppelin
I meant that zero&#39;s admiration for chomsky demosntrated the liberal nature of his own "anarchist" ideology

You didn&#39;t say that, you said "Here we see the true liberal nature of anarchists". But, still, aside from that, I don&#39;t see how enjoying Chomsky&#39;s speeches represents badly on ones politics. I mean, I&#39;ve heard quite a few of his speeches and he&#39;s very good at presenting an argument....better than myself for sure.

Likewise, George Galloway is a brilliant orator....quite possibly one of the most rhetorically gifted political speakers in the World today. But, my appreciation of his speaking talents, like Zero&#39;s appreciation of Chomsky&#39;s, doesn&#39;t represent anything more significant. At the very least, you&#39;d need more information before you made such outlandish and infantile comments.

I mean, Julie Burchill, along with Howard Marks, is probably one of the few celebrities I&#39;d like to meet. As it happens, she&#39;s a Zionist Christian who hates the French, Germans and Catholics, and her father was a Marxist-Leninist. However, her defence of working class culture is/was superb....and that, along with her seeming a right laugh, would make me want to meet her. But that I find this or that aspect of personality interesting, doesn&#39;t represent any kind of "true nature" with regards my politics....it just means I find that attribute commendable.

And, as far as I can see, Zero&#39;s approach to Chomsky seems similar. If s/he went on to praise other aspects of Chomsky&#39;s talents or politics that were really liberal, then you&#39;d have some kind of logical basis from which you could beat your chest....but as it stands, I fail to see an ounce of logic in your reasoning.

After all, Stalin is one of the most readable people around, but that doesn&#39;t mean anything more. After all, just recognising that Stalin was able to write a paragraph without needlessly complicating it with flowery language doesn&#39;t give any kind of insight into the "true nature" of the political bias of the person making the observation.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jul 13 2006, 06:18 PM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Jul 13 2006, 06:18 PM)
Black Dagger
Chomsky is very much an anarchist, he&#39;s spoken specifically on the topic of anarchism (as an advocate) several times....

Oh.

That surprised me a bit because, as I said above, I&#39;ve never read or heard him propose a specifically anarchist/communist economic system. I know he&#39;s dabbled a bit in anarchism, but I&#39;m not aware of him specifically saying "I am an X and I support Y"....so I just assumed his exact politics were unknown.
[/b]
The best book to read on it is the imaginatively titled "Chomsky on Anarchism". A large chunk of it though is his essay on the Spanish Civil War from "American Power and the New Mandarins", but there&#39;s some good stuff there.

Basically he&#39;s happy to endorse a relatively standard anarcho-syndicalist approach, while admitting that he doesn&#39;t really know how the details of it will play out in reality. He&#39;s does see anarchism as being, in part, a development of some liberal thought, but he&#39;s certainly not unique amongst anarchists in doing that. Perhaps he goes further than some would in his references to "libertarian socialism" and he&#39;s also pretty keen on the likes of Pannekoek and Gorter which other anarchists might also not be altogether happy with.

[Dean]

The fact that Israel and the U.S. practically control the whole world makes the focus on criticisms of those regimes hardly partisan.

[MKS]

Chomksy to me is above politics. He stands as an observer of the condition of the world and is reticent to make any idealistic claims. That to me is where most dedicated Leftist should stand, as independent thinkers willing to take lessons from every "ism" and add new ideas in order to correctly progress the human condition to true equality.

He is ant-Lenin, and from what I have read anti-authoritarian, all good positions, his arguments against Leninism and authoritarian communism are very strong and ring true in almost all cases. I even admire him for comparing JFK to Lenin (see Notes on Anarchism). He is equally critical of the US and thier neo-liberal capitalism. However I find it hard to separate any person from their held ideals to their real lives. Chomsky works for MIT which houses an institute run by the D.O.D. and the University to me is just another part of the neo-liberal intelligentsia which has ruled this nation since its foundation. He is bourgeoisie to say the least, and although he speaks a great deal of the need for change he is seldom active, one person brought up his endorsement of Kerry, which to me is blatant pandering.

What the US (and the world) needs are people who are willing to sacrifice for their principles, and be ready to face ruin if they fail. Chomksy has proved he (like most intellects) is not willing to do this and stands on the far-left of the spectrum but is unwilling to jump off the cliff into Revolutionary Action.

For all the bad that can be said against Lenin, Castro, Che and even Mao, you can at least identify them as men who fought for their convictions and stood against great odds to bring about change.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jul 13 2006, 01:18 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jul 13 2006, 01:18 PM) You didn&#39;t say that, you said "Here we see the true liberal nature of anarchists". [/b]
... after having quoted his post.


AS
But, still, aside from that, I don&#39;t see how enjoying Chomsky&#39;s speeches represents badly on ones politics. I mean, I&#39;ve heard quite a few of his speeches and he&#39;s very good at presenting an argument....better than myself for sure.

His words were Chomsky is one of the greatest political speakers of our time in my opinion.

I can only assume that Zero admires Chomsky as a political speaker. He could have said that Chosmky is one of the greatest speakers. But he specified the fact that Chomsky is a political figure. And I stressed what a shitty political figure he is. If I was mistaken as to what he meant, I apologize to zero. The point is that Noam Chomsky is not a person to be admired by revolutionaries.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:05 PM
However I find it hard to separate any person from their held ideals to their real lives. Chomsky works for MIT which houses an institute run by the D.O.D. and the University to me is just another part of the neo-liberal intelligentsia which has ruled this nation since its foundation. He is bourgeoisie to say the least, and although he speaks a great deal of the need for change he is seldom active, one person brought up his endorsement of Kerry, which to me is blatant pandering.

What the US (and the world) needs are people who are willing to sacrifice for their principles, and be ready to face ruin if they fail. Chomksy has proved he (like most intellects) is not willing to do this and stands on the far-left of the spectrum but is unwilling to jump off the cliff into Revolutionary Action.
Thanks for your post - enjoyed reading your views.

Chomsky argues that his position at MIT allows him relative (but not necessarily absolute) freedom to get on with his own work uninterrupted. He is very critical of education in the US as a whole, but thinks it is possible to find gaps within it that you can work within it. An interesting issue nonetheless.

In terms of being "active", I&#39;m sure Chomsky would argue that there is a need for people to be aware of the situation they are in and to be able to take the steps to analyse it, and that his work enables them to do it. He&#39;s said in the past that he&#39;s tried doing more traditionally active work but found it best to stick to what he was good at (namely analysis etc). He did, however, nearly get locked up for a long time over Vietnam and he made a conscious decision to put himself in this position, so its not fair to see him as necessarily "unwilling to jump off the cliff" or ruin for his beliefs (at least in the past).

Personally I think Chomsky is pretty true to his ideals, so I think you&#39;re being a tad unfair to him on this score. However, obviously his ideals can be questioned and I think are worthy of examination in more detail.

[Marion]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Jul 12 2006, 12:10 AM--> (RedZeppelin &#064; Jul 12 2006, 12:10 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 02:20 PM
Chomsky is one of the greatest political speakers of our time in my opinion.

The man praised The United States&#39;s civil liberties and deemed it the greatest country on earth&#33;[/b]

I very much doubt that Chomsky said anything as unqualified as what you&#39;re suggesting, but if you have a reference or quote for this then we can debate it further.


They&#39;ve [Chomsky, Zinn etc] never threatened or even spoken against the basic priciples of liberalism, as established by the United States governemnt.

What basic principles of liberalism as established by the United States government do you think Chomsky should be threatening or speaking against, but hasn&#39;t?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Why do you believe America is imperialistic, citing specific examples of why you think so? ...The Russian Revolution... The Communist Revolution in China... Che Gueverra... The Eastern Bloc...

How many millions were starved, and murdered by those who were Communists?

[Janus]

Why do you believe America is imperialistic
There is the war in Iraq and the fact that it is mainly US corporations that are behind the neocolonialist process.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2006, 07:48 PM
Why do you believe America is imperialistic, citing specific examples of why you think so? ...The Russian Revolution... The Communist Revolution in China... Che Gueverra... The Eastern Bloc...
Do you seriously beleve that the US is not imperialist?

It seems apparent that all too familiar examples of the US interfering n world affairs against the interests of the people (such as in 193 Chile) serve to bring home the point that the nation is an imperialist one.



How many millions were starved, and murdered by those who were Communists?

Again, I could say the same with regard to capitalists, and especially the capitalst sytsem. Of course the difference is that no nation has ever called itself communist, while many that are responsible for local and international human rights abuses and economic disaster call themselves capitalist. The system itself is merely a term, and to describe the works of the crusaders the same as those of contemporary Christians is unfair - in much the same way that Communists cannot be compared to state - capitalist systems.

[kidicarus20]

Originally posted by "RedZepplin"+--> ("RedZepplin")Noam Chomsky is a joke&#33; At least as far as we&#39;re talking about revolutionary politics. He makes a decent criticism of imperialism and that&#39;s it. What are his solutions?[/b]

Noam Chomsky has outlined his vision of an Anarchist societ numbers times.

"I think if you look at the present scene, the future society that I&#39;d like to see is one where you continually do this, and continually extend the range of freedom and justice and lack of external control and greater public participation.

The 18th-century revolutions have not been consummated. Even the texts of classical liberalism were talking about things like wage slavery, people being condemned to work under command instead of working out of their own inner need and not controlling the work process. That&#39;s at the core of classical liberalism. That&#39;s all been completely forgotten. But that ought to be relived. That&#39;s very real. That means an attack on the fundamental structure of State capitalism. I think that&#39;s in order. That&#39;s not something far off in the future. In fact, we don&#39;t even have to fancy ideas about it. A lot of the ideas were articulated in the 18th century, even in what are the classical liberal texts and then later in at least the libertairan parts of the socialist movement and the anarchist movement. I think that is a very live topic which ought to be faced. A vision of a future society from this point of view would be one in which prroduction, decisions over investment, etc., are under control. That means control through communities, through workplaces, through work councils in factories or universities, whatever organization it happened to be, federal structures which integrate thigns over a broad range." (Transcript of recording from Alternative Radio, "MIT, Cambridge Mass" 1990.)


"RedZepplin"
If Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, then I&#39;m Bakunin.

(See above.)

Noam Chomsky is a follower of Bakunin and in books like _Government and the Future_ as well as _Chomsky on Anarchism_ he outlines a similar society to the very founders of Anarchism. His critique of the "liberal state" is from an anarchist perspective.

[kidicarus20]

They&#39;ve [Chomsky, Zinn etc] never threatened or even spoken against the basic priciples of liberalism, as established by the United States governemnt.

Someone on this board has not even read Noam Chomsky. American Power and the New Mandarins is the de facto standard for critiquing the Vietnam war, which was implemented by liberals. Chomsky himself has mainly critiqued the "doves" of US foreign policy, such as George Kennan and Arthur Schlesinger in "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" and "What Uncle Sam Really Wants." Example:

"NSC 68 is the hard-line extreme, and remember: the policies weren&#39;t just theoretical -- many of them were actually being implemented. Now let&#39;s turn to the other extreme, to the doves. The leading dove was undoubtedly George Kennan, who headed the State Department planning staff until 1950, when he was replaced by Nitze -- Kennan&#39;s office, incidentally, was responsible for the Gehlen network.

Kennan was one of the most intelligent and lucid of US planners, and a major figure in shaping the postwar world. His writings are an extremely interesting illustration of the dovish position. One document to look at if you want to understand your country is Policy Planning Study 23, written by Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here&#39;s some of what it says:


we have about 50% of the world&#39;s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

PPS 23 was, of course, a top-secret document. To pacify the public, it was necessary to trumpet the "idealistic slogans" (as is still being done constantly), but here planners were talking to one another.

Along the same lines, in a briefing for US ambassadors to Latin American countries in 1950, Kennan observed that a major concern of US foreign policy must be "the protection of our raw materials." We must therefore combat a dangerous heresy which, US intelligence reported, was spreading through Latin America: "the idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people."

US planners call that idea Communism, whatever the actual political views of the people advocating it. They can be Church-based self-help groups or whatever, but if they support this heresy, they&#39;re Communists.

This point is also made clear in the public record. For example, a high-level study group in 1955 stated that the essential threat of the Communist powers (the real meaning of the term Communism in practice) is their refusal to fulfill their service role -- that is, "to complement the industrial economies of the West."

Kennan went on to explain the means we have to use against our enemies who fall prey to this heresy:


The final answer might be an unpleasant one, but...we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government. This is not shameful since the Communists are essentially traitors....It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by Communists.

Policies like these didn&#39;t begin with postwar liberals like Kennan. As Woodrow Wilson&#39;s Secretary of State had already pointed out 30 years earlier, the operative meaning of the Monroe Doctrine is that "the United States considers its own interests. The integrity of other American nations is an incident, not an end." Wilson, the great apostle of self-determination, agreed that the argument was "unanswerable," though it would be "impolitic" to present it publicly.

Wilson also acted on this thinking by, among other things, invading Haiti and the Dominican Republic, where his warriors murdered and destroyed, demolished the political system, left US corporations firmly in control, and set the stage for brutal and corrupt dictatorships. "

(I.e. he distinguished between the "hardline extreme," the nuts who are most often ignored, and the &#39;doves&#39; who implement state policy.)

As for Zinn, in his essays "War and Unjust War," he explains how "liberal" states often (unjustly) claim moral superiority over the people they are attacking, which supposed justifies their intervention. He starts with Athens (who attacked Sparta, and the island of Melos), who claimed to be morally superior to the Spartans (just read Thucydides) and extrapolates that theory to the United States, which obviously has attacked countries all the time that in order to "install" friendly puppet governments, while claiming to stand for liberal values.

Chomsky even takes that criticism to the media as well:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. that gives people the sense that there&#39;s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate.

"So you&#39;re allowed to discuss whether the Mideast "peace process" should be implemented immediately or should be delayed, and whether Israel is sacrificing too much or just the right amount. but you&#39;re not allowed to discuss the fact -- and it certainly is a fact -- that this so-called "peace process" wiped out a 25-year, internationally supported diplomatic effort recognizing the national rights of both contending parties, and rammed home the US position that denies these rights to Palestinians.

"Let&#39;s clarify what it really means to say the medial are liberal. Suppose 80% of all journalists vote Democratic. Does that mean they&#39;re liberal in any meaningful sense of the word, or just that they&#39;re at the left end of an extremely narrow, center-right spectrum? (Most of my writing has been a criticism of the liberal end of the media, the ones who set the leftmost boundary for acceptable opinion.)

Take it a step further. Suppose it turns out that 80% of all journalists are flaming radicals who&#39;d really rather be writing for [i]Z. Would that show that the media themselves are radical? Only if you assume that the media are open to the free expression of ideas (by their reporters, in this case). " (The common good.)

If you want to see proof of the "bolded part," read his book Manufacturing Consent.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

kidcarious, I already mentioned that Chomsky makes a good analasys of American foreign policy and imperialism. But you&#39;re yet to refute anything I said.


Originally posted by Chomsky
The 18th-century revolutions have not been consummated. Even the texts of classical liberalism were talking about things like wage slavery, people being condemned to work under command instead of working out of their own inner need and not controlling the work process. That&#39;s at the core of classical liberalism. That&#39;s all been completely forgotten. But that ought to be relived.

Oh yes, very revolutionary indeed.
Working out of inner need has fuck-all to do with classical liberalism and the basic value of the enlightenment. And wage slavery and workers not controlling the work process?&#33; I don&#39;t know one liberal theorist or economist that ever spoke out against these things in the context of a capitalist society. If you can show me one, I would appreciated it.

I&#39;m glad you posted this exerpt. It perfectly demonstrates that Noam Chomsky isn&#39;t interested in the least in attacking the liberal foundatitions of American economics, he just wants to look for it&#39;s "good side". Which doesn&#39;t exist. I&#39;m sorry, but classical liberalism and revolutionary leftist ideologies have absolutely nothing in common.

[Krypto-Communist]

He&#39;s a good second-tier author to read.

I credit Chomsky for opening my mind to U.S. criticism but he certainly wasn&#39;t the first.

This is how it went for me (in order): Michael Moore, George Orwell, Noam Chomsky, redstar2000, revleft, Bahkunin, Marx, general labor history, Marxist economists.

He&#39;s a good introductory read, you know, to get a basic understanding of american imperialism, media criticism, education etc...but shouldn&#39;t forgo criticism and shouldn&#39;t be obssesively praise.

I like him and respect him because he introduced me to alot of things that I couldn&#39;t get from traditional left-wing authors.

[hajduk]

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68842

[Jazzratt]

Another thread from last year, why the fuck are you resurrecting them?