Noam Chomsky

[Cheung Mo]

He would have run circles around his opponent(s) in the quality of his debates, his press releases, and his sound bites...Meanwhile, Americans will be obsessing over his atheism and the size of his wife's butt (If he's married at all. I don't know his personal life.) and elect some Clinton, Kennedy, or Bush asshole.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

He would really do well at highlighting the problems of America's politics, but good men and women don't last in such vile systems for long. As you say, they'd collectively discredit him and elect some suit.

[blazeofglory]

For the 1st time, I wud like America... I am an ANTI AMERICAN(IMPERIALISM)

Chavez is the most practical guy in modern day politics

[Demogorgon]

America elect some Godless Commies? :lol: The ability to run rings around your opponent in a Presidential Debate is not an advantage in redneck oriented politics.

That said Chomsky running for President would still be a good thing. It would draw a lot of attention to some good ideas and some people would be bound to notice what they are currently offered isn't good enough.

[ComradeR]

Well he would be pushed into obscurity by the corporate party (Reps and Dems they're basically one and the same) owned media, and he would be barred from the major debates, as is the fate of any and all real opposition parties and candidates. So in the end it wouldn't make any difference, as thanks to things like i mentioned above most people would never have even heard of him.
Not to mention the fact that the people have no real say whatsoever in presidential "elections".

[Sankara1983]

He's not charismatic enough. He would refuse to be consumed by the sort of nationalism, anti-immigrant hysteria and uplifting warm-fuzzy "America is #1" stuff that every candidate with a chance of winning has to promote.

Whatever the case, too many people forget that the President is not popularly elected. The Electoral College was devised as a concession to the Southern ruling class to perpetuate slavery.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A few things.

First, Noam Chomsky is a good critic of U.S. imperialism, but beyond that, he doesn't have a ton of worth, politically speaking.

Second, Noam Chomsky has endorsed bourgeois candidates in bourgeois elections of the past (i.e. John Kerry). I don't see why he would ever run for office. He seems to have no interest in getting involved in anything outside of what he already does.

Third, Noam Chomsky expresses as much anti-communism as some on the right. If you really want to endorse a petty-bourgeois "intellectual" to run for president of the U.S., Michael Parenti would be a much better choice... especially if the goal was to expose more people to a leftist outlook.

Finally, bourgeois "democracy," is just that... democracy for the bourgeoisie, not for the workers. Even if Noam Chomsky was politically perfect, he wouldn't win... and even if he did, it wouldn't end wage slavery.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
First, Noam Chomsky is a good critic of U.S. imperialism, but beyond that, he doesn't have a ton of worth, politically speaking.

That's seems to be the standard diatribe directed at Chomsky. Good at reporting the details of American imperialism, but not so good at reporting on anything else.

But it's not that accurate. After all, the skills that make Chomsky good at one thing, can (and do) carry over to other areas. Like, for instance, his writings on the power structures of government and the use of propaganda. Or his consistent defence of civil liberties. And so on.

Chomsky has his faults, no doubt about that; but those who are unable to look beyond his most famed writings, have their own faults. And there's no doubt about that, either.


Second, Noam Chomsky has endorsed bourgeois candidates in bourgeois elections of the past (i.e. John Kerry).

As far as I know, he endorsed one candidate in one election -- so both "candidates" and "elections" should be in the singular.

And, anyway, his endorsement was on par with the type of endorsement the SWP used to give the Labour Party. A vote for the lesser of two evils type of thing. Indeed, it was probably even less enthusiastic than that.

Just typical leftism, really.

As for why that particular fact makes it less likely that he'd want to run as President, I'm a bit lost. Logically, by endorsing a candidate, Chomsky would be gravitating towards bourgeois politics -- and therefore, towards considering himself as a contender.
_ _ _ _ _

Anyway, whether Chomsky ran for President, or not, he'd still serve the same role he does now. As a counterweight to the political right in the arena of mass media -- something which has a certain amount of value.

[Hiero]

That's seems to be the standard diatribe directed at Chomsky. Good at reporting the details of American imperialism, but not so good at reporting on anything else.

But it's not that accurate. After all, the skills that make Chomsky good at one thing, can (and do) carry over to other areas. Like, for instance, his writings on the power structures of government and the use of propaganda. Or his consistent defence of civil liberties. And so on.

Chomsky has his faults, no doubt about that; but those who are unable to look beyond his most famed writings, have their own faults. And there's no doubt about that, either.

That doesn't make Chomsky a good politician. Ofcourse he is brilliant at analysing subjects beyond American foreign policy, such as linguistics and as you say power structures. These are qualities that make a great academic, not excactly qualities that create a good politician.

His voting base would be the working class intellectuals and the middle class intellectuals. I can't see Chomsky dumbing down his work to make a populist agenda for president.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Chomsky running for president would be a horrible thing. An anarchist wanting to be the leader of a state....... isn't there some kind of clashing ideas there? Also his monotone speeches and his big words would be too much to get anyones attention.

[RebelDog]

Third, Noam Chomsky expresses as much anti-communism as some on the right.

What form did his anti-communism take? Can you provide links?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 01, 2007 06:28 pm
A few things.

First, Noam Chomsky is a good critic of U.S. imperialism, but beyond that, he doesn't have a ton of worth, politically speaking.

Second, Noam Chomsky has endorsed bourgeois candidates in bourgeois elections of the past (i.e. John Kerry). I don't see why he would ever run for office. He seems to have no interest in getting involved in anything outside of what he already does.

Third, Noam Chomsky expresses as much anti-communism as some on the right. If you really want to endorse a petty-bourgeois "intellectual" to run for president of the U.S., Michael Parenti would be a much better choice... especially if the goal was to expose more people to a leftist outlook.

Finally, bourgeois "democracy," is just that... democracy for the bourgeoisie, not for the workers. Even if Noam Chomsky was politically perfect, he wouldn't win... and even if he did, it wouldn't end wage slavery.
Did Chomsky really endorse Kerry? That sucks. How do you come to the conclusion that Chomsky is anti-communism?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I believe he endorsed Kerry for the same reason the American "communist" party endorsed kerry.

A sign to the Iraq and Afgahn people that Americans dont support the Bush wars.

Whether or not this was a smart move is debatable.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)That doesn't make Chomsky a good politician.[/b]

I didn't say it did make him "a good politician". That wasn't my point. Rather, my point was that those who pigeon hole Chomsky's worth as being solely related to his ability to critique American imperialism, are being pretty short-sighted -- because there's more to him than just that.


Hiero
I can't see Chomsky dumbing down his work to make a populist agenda for president.

His work is pretty populist, as it is.

I only found On Anarchism hard work, personally; so I gave up on that after about 10 pages. Everything else I've read of his, I found a pretty easy read -- even though when I first read him I hadn't even hear of the majority of events he was discussing.

So I don't really see that as an issue, to be honest.

[Raúl Duke]

How do you come to the conclusion that Chomsky is anti-communism?

That's becuase he's against state socialism/state capitalism. :P

I think if he runned for president it would be a big waste of time..also the libertarian socialists (at least I would) would be displeased that someone who calls himself an anarchist is actually running to be head of state. That action would discredit Chomsky from the revolutionary left (since it would be like supporting bourgeoisie political institutions).

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 01, 2007 12:41 am
He would have run circles around his opponent(s) in the quality of his debates, his press releases, and his sound bites...Meanwhile, Americans will be obsessing over his atheism and the size of his wife's butt (If he's married at all. I don't know his personal life.) and elect some Clinton, Kennedy, or Bush asshole.
they would just shout
"CHILD OF SATAN! :o DO NOT CAST YOUR SPELLS UPON ME!
BURN THE WITCH!"

[chimx]

Originally posted by CDL
Noam Chomsky expresses as much anti-communism as some on the right.

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Just because he doesn't suck off the cuban government doesn't make him anti-communist. This is the kind of "logic" that intelligitimate uses to denounce all people that disagree with "Stalinism"

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by chimx+April 02, 2007 08:40 pm--> (chimx @ April 02, 2007 08:40 pm)
CDL
Noam Chomsky expresses as much anti-communism as some on the right.

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Just because he doesn't suck off the cuban government doesn't make him anti-communist. This is the kind of "logic" that intelligitimate uses to denounce all people that disagree with "Stalinism" [/b]
So instead sucking John Kerry and democrats make you a great friend of communism isn't it ? You logic is worser than Intelligitimate.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by g.ram+April 02, 2007 09:18 am--> (g.ram @ April 02, 2007 09:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:40 pm

CDL
Noam Chomsky expresses as much anti-communism as some on the right.

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Just because he doesn't suck off the cuban government doesn't make him anti-communist. This is the kind of "logic" that intelligitimate uses to denounce all people that disagree with "Stalinism"
So instead sucking John Kerry and democrats make you a great friend of communism isn't it ? You logic is worser than Intelligitimate. [/b]
Endorsing Kerry was a horrible thing to do. He would have been no different than Bush. They are old Yale buddies.

Anyways Chomsky isn't hostile to Castro's Cuba you can read this article about one of his visits to meet Castro.

http://www.walterlippmann.com/cranky-yankees.html

[Angry Young Man]

So are American politics based around the bible-belt? I'd imagine a left-wing candidate would do quite well in the North-East or California or Seattle for some reason.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Romantic [email protected] 02, 2007 11:38 am
So are American politics based around the bible-belt? I'd imagine a left-wing candidate would do quite well in the North-East or California or Seattle for some reason.
There are no legitimate leftist candidates and I don't think there ever could be. Once a left-wing candidate even enters the bourgeois race they lose their credibility. Even if there was a left wing candidate they really wouldn't do well because most Americans, even in California and the North, are brainwashed by the binary political charade. The most left leaning political candidate that runs is probably Ralph Nader. I really don't know what his political idealogy is aside from anti-corporation.

[chimx]

He would have been no different than Bush.

That is hopelessly naive. Obviously the basic structure of the American government wouldn't change, but to ignore the policy differences between democrats and republicans is nothing more than self-enucleation!

Chomsky is critical of the Cuban government, which your own link points out.

[PRC-UTE]

Here's an interesting article on Chomsky from the Weekly Worker: US Establishment Anarchist (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/656/chomsky.htm).

Chomsky's a complex charactar as he has a few anti-Marxist tendencies but he is undoubtedly a huge source of inspiration. He was one of the first left wing authors I read and I'd credit him with helping push me in that direction, though I consider him to have a mixed record on politics.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:06 pm

He would have been no different than Bush.

That is hopelessly naive. Obviously the basic structure of the American government wouldn't change, but to ignore the policy differences between democrats and republicans is nothing more than self-enucleation!

Chomsky is critical of the Cuban government, which your own link points out.
I wasn't saying that Chomsky isn't critical of Cuba's government. I said he wasn't hostile to Castro's government.

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

So you can say I am naive if you want but I believe they would have been no different than each other. That is the reason I don't vote. Now if you believe one would have been different than the other did you vote? Do you vote? If I believed that one would be better than the other I would vote for the better one.

[Idola Mentis]

Nevermind joining the presidential ritual. Imagine if Noam Chomsky had the balls to outline an anarchist future.

[Coggeh]

Since when was Chomsky an anarchist ?...... ;) ... he described himself as a libertarian socialist right ? :)

Ya he would be a very kick ass president but rednecks are too stupid to vote for someone that will actually benefit them . So i don't see it happening for a long long time

[chimx]

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

The Iraq War was minuscule?

I understand what you are saying. Capitalism would persist obviously. But I think you are throwing the word "minuscule" around a bit too freely.


So you can say I am naive if you want but I believe they would have been no different than each other. That is the reason I don't vote. Now if you believe one would have been different than the other did you vote? Do you vote? If I believed that one would be better than the other I would vote for the better one.

I don't vote, for reasons other than what has been mentioned in this thread, which I would rather not get into as it isn't relevant to this thread. PM me if you really need to know.


Since when was Chomsky an anarchist?

He has always identified with anarchism. In a public debate against Michel Foucault, he defended anarcho-syndicalism against Fourcault's criticisms of such a model. He wrote the forward to Guerin's book on anarchism. He calls himself an anarchist regularly.


rednecks

This isn't relevant to the topic at hand, but I find it odd that this forum disallows prejudicial pejoratives of different ethnicities, gender, sexuality, and metal capacities, but allows prejudicial language for working class people. Odd...

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:27 pm

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

The Iraq War was minuscule?

I understand what you are saying. Capitalism would persist obviously. But I think you are throwing the word "minuscule" around a bit too freely.


So you can say I am naive if you want but I believe they would have been no different than each other. That is the reason I don't vote. Now if you believe one would have been different than the other did you vote? Do you vote? If I believed that one would be better than the other I would vote for the better one.

I don't vote, for reasons other than what has been mentioned in this thread, which I would rather not get into as it isn't relevant to this thread. PM me if you really need to know.
The Iraq war isn't minuscule. Are you suggesting that Kerry would have stopped an invasion in the middle of it? Are you suggesting that Kerry would magically turn into a saint and care about the dying Iraqis? What is the evidence that Kerry or someone from the Democratic party would have not went into Iraq? Korea? Vietnam? How about the democrat's Iraq Liberation Act?

No the Iraq war isn't minuscule but Kerry would have had to do something different than Bush for their differences to be anything more than minuscule.

Ok so you think that there are differences between the parties that are not minuscule yet you don't vote.......... didn't you say something about self-enucleation earlier?

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:27 am
He has always identified with anarchism.
Yep. I've decided to believe the key to the relevant statement lies with the little yellow winky thing, and the exact meaning of the term "libertarian socialist".

Never noticed before, really. It sounds so... clean. Responsible, like. The mental image involves suits and ties. A party could get itself a parliament seat or two under that label, if for nothing else you'll always find some people too damn lazy to investigate what they're actually voting for. They seem to make up roughly a third of the voting population here. Now I just need to find a translation that sounds as good in norwegian...

[chimx]

The Democrats wouldn't have started a war in Iraq. Assuming that 9/11 still occurred, Afghanistan might still have been invaded. I would bet that given the Democrats track-record (Clinton and Carter), greater attention would have been given to North Korea.


Ok so you think that there are differences between the parties that are not minuscule yet you don't vote.......... didn't you say something about self-enucleation earlier?

Ahhh, isn't self-enucleation a great word? I don't vote because I'm not interested in representative politics.

[rebelworker]

Suggesting that Parenti would do better than chomsky is laughable. Soviet apologism wont do to well in the us, though left libertarianism might.

Chomsky is not "anti communist" he has a healthy critique of authoritarian socialism.

His CD "Class War" is an excellent listen and clearly puts him on side with the working class against the bosses.

I also have a huge problem with soemone from another continent makeing a comment like "rednecks are too stupid". How the fuck would you know?

"Rednecks" arnt the problem here, you are speaking about a cultureal steriotype of rural poor, mostly they dont vote, its the affluent conservative middle class who are the republican backbone.

Theres tones of poor folks in the US waking up to Unions right now. I know cause I do phone surveys for the largest polling company in North America. i regularly call very conservative areas of the us, even the traditional republicans are starting to question the current govt. Ive had a self identified born again conservative christian from Texas insist that "We need more unions". The republican agenda is starting to really hurt the poor, especially in the south and a left leaning libertarian could really open their eyes to another alternative.

The US working class is rightfully scared of the old communist movement, some of the worst atrocities ever commited against the working class were done by the Communist Party. The only way we can win workers in North America back to the left, is with strongly anti authoritarian politics.

Anyway, for the reasosn mentioned above Chomsky would just get shut out of debates, sp theres no reason for him to run. Elections do matter (though they defenitly wont change the system).

PS I voted in the quebec elections two weeks ago.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:43 pm
The Democrats wouldn't have started a war in Iraq. Assuming that 9/11 still occurred, Afghanistan might still have been invaded. I would bet that given the Democrats track-record (Clinton and Carter), greater attention would have been given to North Korea.


Ok so you think that there are differences between the parties that are not minuscule yet you don't vote.......... didn't you say something about self-enucleation earlier?

Ahhh, isn't self-enucleation a great word? I don't vote because I'm not interested in representative politics.
Yeah it's a good one. I had never seen it before you used it.

Afghanistan might have been invaded? It definitely would have been invaded. Everytime liberals talk about how bad Iraq is they say "we should have just finished up in Afghanistan and never went into Iraq". They think Afghanistan is a just war.

But anyways if the democrats wouldn't have invaded Iraq they would have funded death squad in Iraq to do the same things. Remember Clinton was bombing Iraq in the 90's. Here is Clinton's ILA.

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





"SUMMARY:

(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime."

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 02, 2007 02:28 am
A few things.

First, Noam Chomsky is a good critic of U.S. imperialism, but beyond that, he doesn't have a ton of worth, politically speaking.

Second, Noam Chomsky has endorsed bourgeois candidates in bourgeois elections of the past (i.e. John Kerry). I don't see why he would ever run for office. He seems to have no interest in getting involved in anything outside of what he already does.

Third, Noam Chomsky expresses as much anti-communism as some on the right. If you really want to endorse a petty-bourgeois "intellectual" to run for president of the U.S., Michael Parenti would be a much better choice... especially if the goal was to expose more people to a leftist outlook.

Finally, bourgeois "democracy," is just that... democracy for the bourgeoisie, not for the workers. Even if Noam Chomsky was politically perfect, he wouldn't win... and even if he did, it wouldn't end wage slavery.
who the fuck said he would end wage slavery? LOL

[Andy Bowden]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:43 pm
The Democrats wouldn't have started a war in Iraq.
What are you basing that on? They voted for the invasion along with the Republicans. Kerry's platform was, if I remember correctly, to deploy an extra 20,000 troops into Iraq. The whole plan for invading Iraq was developed under the Clinton administration.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by RebelWorker
I've had a self identified born again conservative christian from Texas insist that "We need more unions".

This is a far cry from "we must form workers-councils and smash the state", but anyways-- there does seem to be less of the anti-union sentiment here in the south. There's not so much anti-unionism, as much as it is somewhat sympathetic, but with the realization that unions can't really do anything. People here don't say " Well I signed a contract, and fair is fair" so much, its more like "Well, if they take from my paycheck--what good are they going to with it?"

some questions:
Why is linguistics important to the political world, and how does it connect with Chomskys political work?

I can't see Chomsky ever running for president; even he tried, he wouldn't even get adequate funding for campaigns. He'd probably end up debating other third party candidates on some obscure satallite channel, that only political buffs watch. If the USA were to ever go the way it did in the early 1900's and he were to abandon his populism he could use campaigning to agitate much like Debs, but it could just end up beign a waste of time seeing as what we know today, and the way the media can easy take people in and make them sterille. Heck, some Liberals and Populists even assert "Debs was a nice guy" and largely ignore his revolutionary stance.

[bolshevik butcher]

On Chomsky I'd broadley agree with what Companero de Liberated has said. Chomskey seems to me to be very intellectual in his approach. He's happy to criticise US imperialism from his university office, and in his books but what does he do when it comes to on the ground material organising. He doesn't endores a revolutionary party or as far as I can see in real terms any other practical way to destroy captialism. Chomsky is the safe, fashionable left that the bourgoirse is happy to have in their book shops and happy to have on tv once in a while as in reality they don't present a real threat to their power.

[praxis1966]

Wow. Hike up your trousers, ladies and gentlemen, because the bullshit's getting deep.

1) Basically, Kerry said he would have invaded as well, but he would have worked harder to build an international consensus first. Translation: 'I would have done the same, but people in other countries like me better.'

2) Talking about Chomsky running for president, while an interesting concept, is really just mental masturbation since he'll never actually do it.

3) Stop using the phrase 'self-enucleation.' It doesn't mean what you think it does beause it's not a derivative of 'eunuch.' A better fit would be 'self-emasculation.'

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+June 27, 2007 03:20 pm--> (Andy Bowden @ June 27, 2007 03:20 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:43 pm
The Democrats wouldn't have started a war in Iraq.
What are you basing that on? They voted for the invasion along with the Republicans. [/b]
False. "The democratic party" doesnt vote as a party at all because they're not a party as the term is understood out in the free world. But the majority of dp senators and mc's voted against the invasion.

[Andy Bowden]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/



Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:45 pm
Wow. Hike up your trousers, ladies and gentlemen, because the bullshit's getting deep.

1) Basically, Kerry said he would have invaded as well, but he would have worked harder to build an international consensus first. Translation: 'I would have done the same, but people in other countries like me better.'




Indeed!


2) Talking about Chomsky running for president, while an interesting concept, is really just mental masturbation since he'll never actually do it..

...and he'll never win.

Hey guys! Wouldn't it be just great if we could have (insert "leftist") as our leader! Surley if we got the right guy for the job he could make a difference. :unsure:

This exercise is futile and basically meaningless. We can play the "what if" game for years and get no where. Chomsky would never get elected and if he did he wouldn't/ couldn't do shit.

What kind of president do we want? None!

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 28, 2007 11:38 pm
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/



Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
Okay, wrong vote. There have been crucial votes, though, in which the 3-2 ratio among dp politicians was reversed, and as we see "the dp" did not rush en mass to support the occupation but was "split" between the DCL (Democratic Losers' Council) faction and the older and shrinking liberal and social democratic faction. The rp comes much closer to centralism than the dp.

[RGacky3]

he has talked about outlining an Anarchist future but against it, becaues its something you can't really do, the Utopian socialists tried that, he prefers experimentation, and basing things on principles not blueprints.

Chomsky can't run for president,
A: He's not very charismatic,
B: the 'electoral system has gone so downhill he does'nt have a chance
C: As president he would'nt be albe to do much unless he had a Socialist congress
D: It would go against his principles as an Anarchist.
E: He would be forced to make decisions that would go against his principles

What MIGHT work is if we can ressurect Eugene Debs, a christian (many points up), a down to earth all-American type guy, a very charismatic guy, not an anarchist.

[CornetJoyce]

"Chomsky for president" is a useless discussion but for what it's worth if he wanted to do that and refused to participate in the primaries, like Nader, he'd get on the ballot in even fewer provinces than Nader did last time. So his campaign wouldn't be "educational" at all: it would be nearly nonexistent.

My master plan for electoral politics is not dependent upon heroes or charisma:

http://adams.patriot.net/~cnc/cp.htm

[cyu]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/29/2181/

Chomsky on Progressive Strategy
by Wolfgang Brauner

Noam Chomsky is one of the key figures on the American and global left. He is said to be one of the most widely quoted intellectuals in the world. In 2005, readers of AlterNet voted him MVP (Most Valuable Progressive). And he remains very close to many activists.

For all these reasons, we were very excited when we finally had the opportunity in late May to interview Chomsky for 25 minutes about his thinking on progressive grand strategy for building political power on the American left. More specifically, and in keeping with the main interest of our Progressive Strategy Studies Project, we asked him whether he finds it useful to think about how to build power in strategic terms.

Glancing at the list of individuals and organizations that we included in our first report, “Finding Strategy: A Survey of Contemporary Contributions to Progressive Strategy,” he noted that there was more “extensive and far-reaching” thinking on progressive strategy than what was reflected in our report.

Throughout the interview, he mainly referred to the work of Gar Alperovitz, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, and Joel Rogers (the latter is included in our report), on how to democratize the economy and the workplace through worker self-management, cooperatives, etc. In particular, he referred to Alperovitz’ latest book, America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy (2004), and a number of books by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel on participatory economics and broader sociopolitical issues. Chomsky considers their work to be very important, particularly for activists.

He started out by emphasizing that the US is “a one-party state with two wings, Democrat and Republican,” and claimed that both were “way to the right of the majority of Americans” on many crucial issues. According to Chomsky, social scientists like C. Wright Mills, Thomas Ferguson, and Bill Domhoff (who also is included in our report) are pretty much right: Corporations dominate the power structure and hence US politics. In the US this is even more so the case than in other countries because of the much more brutal suppression of labor. Quoting Dewey, Chomsky noted that in the absence of economic democracy, “politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.”

Since the state, having become so thoroughly co-opted by corporate interests, is part of the problem, it is difficult to significantly change it from within through elections or public policy reforms. While short-term, pragmatic change remains possible and desirable, systemic change would require a transformation of power relations within society through a democratization of economic decision-making.

Criticizing the recent health care reform in Massachusetts as overly complicated precisely because it has to respond to too many corporate interests, Chomsky noted that, even though a large majority of the population favors straightforward changes, the US can’t even achieve a real health care reform. While pragmatic change is better than nothing, it pales in comparison to the kind of change a country like Bolivia has been able to achieve, “something the US and other Western societies can only dream of.”

Serious progress towards a truly functioning democracy requires democratizing the economy. Traditionally, labor has been the main agent of change, but today it is, as Chomsky put it, “smashed,” and struggles to survive. Who can fill the huge gap that labor has left behind? Chomsky admits that other actors, such as churches and universities, are weak, if not marginal, though there has been impressive growth of popular movements, many of them quite new and promising. They offer considerable promise and opportunity for those willing to keep working hard at “building the cells of a future society.”

Wolfgang Brauner is the Project Manager and Principal Researcher of the Progressive Strategy Studies Project at the Commonwealth Institute in Cambridge, Mass. (http://www.comw.org/pssp/index.html). You can reach him at [email protected] The report, “Finding Strategy: A Survey of Contemporary Contributions to Progressive Strategy,” can be found here: http://www.comw.org/pssp/fulltext/0611psspreport1.pdf.

[Guerrilla22]

There are certain ideas that are just not acceptable in mainstream US politics and Chomsky expresses them often. Therefore he could never enter the political arena even if he wanted to. Aside from that, it wouldn't matter who was president as long as the current system is in tact.

[wake_up]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 01, 2007 12:41 am
He would have run circles around his opponent(s) in the quality of his debates, his press releases, and his sound bites...Meanwhile, Americans will be obsessing over his atheism and the size of his wife's butt (If he's married at all. I don't know his personal life.) and elect some Clinton, Kennedy, or Bush asshole.

Hello all: I think most americans and most people of this planet (middle and lower classes) are progressive, revolutionary, and noble. The big corrupted thinking, the elitist thinking of most people specially in U.S.A comes from the upper-middle class sectors and of course the upper-caste of this society. But as you know U.S. still has a large middle-bourbeiousie class which are doctors, lawyers, stock-investors, economists, and so on, most of those people would hate Chomsky's stance on things. But like i told you everybody else, middle working and lower working class americans would welcome a Noam Chomsky.

People in this country are waking up, they already hate Bush and Democ-rats

wake_up

[hajduk]

NOAM CHOMSKY DENIED THAT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS HOLOCAUST ARGUING THAT WITH WORDS THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BEEN KILLED IN BOSNIA SO HOLOCAUST IS NOT HAPPEND THERE :angry:

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:27 pm

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

The Iraq War was minuscule?


Kerry said he was going to send more troops to Iraq if he was elected. You know, to finish the job up right.

[Colonello Buendia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:27 am

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

The Iraq War was minuscule?

I understand what you are saying. Capitalism would persist obviously. But I think you are throwing the word "minuscule" around a bit too freely.


So you can say I am naive if you want but I believe they would have been no different than each other. That is the reason I don't vote. Now if you believe one would have been different than the other did you vote? Do you vote? If I believed that one would be better than the other I would vote for the better one.

I don't vote, for reasons other than what has been mentioned in this thread, which I would rather not get into as it isn't relevant to this thread. PM me if you really need to know.


Since when was Chomsky an anarchist?

He has always identified with anarchism. In a public debate against Michel Foucault, he defended anarcho-syndicalism against Fourcault's criticisms of such a model. He wrote the forward to Guerin's book on anarchism. He calls himself an anarchist regularly.


rednecks

This isn't relevant to the topic at hand, but I find it odd that this forum disallows prejudicial pejoratives of different ethnicities, gender, sexuality, and metal capacities, but allows prejudicial language for working class people. Odd...

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

this is wrong because though Kerry is a capitalist he actually owns a few braincells unlike that idiot Bush and he wold probably made a few okay decisions for a capitalist

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by CCCP9000+July 14, 2007 10:06 am--> (CCCP9000 @ July 14, 2007 10:06 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 02:27 am

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

The Iraq War was minuscule?

I understand what you are saying. Capitalism would persist obviously. But I think you are throwing the word "minuscule" around a bit too freely.


So you can say I am naive if you want but I believe they would have been no different than each other. That is the reason I don't vote. Now if you believe one would have been different than the other did you vote? Do you vote? If I believed that one would be better than the other I would vote for the better one.

I don't vote, for reasons other than what has been mentioned in this thread, which I would rather not get into as it isn't relevant to this thread. PM me if you really need to know.


Since when was Chomsky an anarchist?

He has always identified with anarchism. In a public debate against Michel Foucault, he defended anarcho-syndicalism against Fourcault's criticisms of such a model. He wrote the forward to Guerin's book on anarchism. He calls himself an anarchist regularly.


rednecks

This isn't relevant to the topic at hand, but I find it odd that this forum disallows prejudicial pejoratives of different ethnicities, gender, sexuality, and metal capacities, but allows prejudicial language for working class people. Odd...

Kerry might have had a few small differences when compared to Bush but he would be no better. That was my point. The policy differences are so minuscule that the differences mean pretty much nothing to me and therefore in my opinion Kerry would have been no different than Bush.

this is wrong because though Kerry is a capitalist he actually owns a few braincells unlike that idiot Bush and he wold probably made a few okay decisions for a capitalist [/b]
You mean okay dicisions for capitalists.

The stupidity of Bush is dwarfed by the massive"achievments" he has made for his ideology. He followed up his fathers job in the Middle East, got a supreme court that fancies his religious convictions, etc...

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:05 am
NOAM CHOMSKY DENIED THAT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS HOLOCAUST ARGUING THAT WITH WORDS THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BEEN KILLED IN BOSNIA SO HOLOCAUST IS NOT HAPPEND THERE :angry:
Thats a matter of definition. That does'nt by any means say that he approves of it.

[Never Give In]

I hate Chomskey's writing style. He does nothing but Quote others.'

On this subject, I like his ideas, I actually just finished Chomsky On Anarchism but I agree completely with RGacky3 on this one.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by RGacky3+July 14, 2007 10:59 pm--> (RGacky3 @ July 14, 2007 10:59 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 10:05 am
NOAM CHOMSKY DENIED THAT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS HOLOCAUST ARGUING THAT WITH WORDS THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BEEN KILLED IN BOSNIA SO HOLOCAUST IS NOT HAPPEND THERE :angry:
Thats a matter of definition. That does'nt by any means say that he approves of it. [/b]
YEAH BUT IS IT HARD TO BE A MAN AND SAY THE HOLOCAUST IS WHEN ONE MAN BEEN KILLED?

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by hajduk+July 15, 2007 12:09 pm--> (hajduk @ July 15, 2007 12:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:59 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 10:05 am
NOAM CHOMSKY DENIED THAT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS HOLOCAUST ARGUING THAT WITH WORDS THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BEEN KILLED IN BOSNIA SO HOLOCAUST IS NOT HAPPEND THERE :angry:
Thats a matter of definition. That does'nt by any means say that he approves of it.
YEAH BUT IS IT HARD TO BE A MAN AND SAY THE HOLOCAUST IS WHEN ONE MAN BEEN KILLED? [/b]
Why exactly do you type in all capitals?
It's very annoying.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by hajduk+July 15, 2007 11:09 am--> (hajduk @ July 15, 2007 11:09 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:59 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 10:05 am
NOAM CHOMSKY DENIED THAT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS HOLOCAUST ARGUING THAT WITH WORDS THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BEEN KILLED IN BOSNIA SO HOLOCAUST IS NOT HAPPEND THERE :angry:
Thats a matter of definition. That does'nt by any means say that he approves of it.
YEAH BUT IS IT HARD TO BE A MAN AND SAY THE HOLOCAUST IS WHEN ONE MAN BEEN KILLED? [/b]
Well the common definition of holocaust often demands more then one persons death. Usually that would constitute a murder.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+July 16, 2007 05:49 am--> (Pawn Power @ July 16, 2007 05:49 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:09 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:59 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 10:05 am
NOAM CHOMSKY DENIED THAT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS HOLOCAUST ARGUING THAT WITH WORDS THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BEEN KILLED IN BOSNIA SO HOLOCAUST IS NOT HAPPEND THERE :angry:
Thats a matter of definition. That does'nt by any means say that he approves of it.
YEAH BUT IS IT HARD TO BE A MAN AND SAY THE HOLOCAUST IS WHEN ONE MAN BEEN KILLED?
Well the common definition of holocaust often demands more then one persons death. Usually that would constitute a murder. [/b]
Yeah man but in Bosnia is not just one man been killed,IT KILLED OVER 40 000 people and if its not a holocaust what it is, a bar fight? :angry:

[hajduk]

Never Giv In my button for caps lock was broken i fix it naow sorry SMRT FAŠIZMU SLOBODA NARODU :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk, I am sorry to have to tell you that this is not so; Chomsky did not do what you say. It is a lie put about by his enemies (and one that has been refuted more times than you have used capital letters).

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 03:36 pm
Hajduk, I am sorry to have to tell you that this is not so; Chomsky did not do what you say. It is a lie put about by his enemies (and one that has been refuted more times than you have used capital letters).
During the 2006 in January on bosnian national tv BIHTV was a political talk show called "OTVORENO SA DUŠKOM JURIŠIĆ" on english called "OPEN TALK WITH DUSKA JURISHIC" Noam Chomski was guest over the network link,and he answer the questions which ask Duska and guests in studio which are been common people who lost somebody in war like mothers of Srebrenica and else.So i hear him Rosa how he telling that kind od stupidity to those people,and some of them cant beleive what he telling.He telling about semantic meaning of the word :angry: holocaust.Rosa explain that to me?Explain to those people who lost all families,explain that to mothers who been forced to looking haow chetniks rape her 12 years old dother.Do you have kids Rosa?Explain that to father who been forced to rape his own son.Chomsky said that in Bosnia was not holocaust he said that in Bosnia was ethnic cleansening?&#33; :angry: What supposed need to be clean?&#33;Bosnian people?I told you Rosa i hear him wery well.And for those people he was a big dissapointment,becouse the students from Bosnia talk about Chomsky in superlatives,like he is god he know what happend in Bosnia and stuff like that.After that what this people hear from him some of them start to cry in studio,becouse they realise there is no justice for them at all.Explain those people that Rosa,if you can.Sad but true.Any questions? <_<

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, it is very hard for me to follow your argument, since your English is not too good, and I suspect that this might have meant you mistook what he had to say.

But he is on (written) record on this, and it is not as his critics allege.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 05:37 pm
Well, it is very hard for me to follow your argument, since your English is not too good, and I suspect that this might have meant you mistook what he had to say.

But he is on (written) record on this, and it is not as his critics allege.
Well i am sorry for my english but i think you understand a point from this quote <_<

[hajduk]

And Rosi you can ask the national tv BHT1 they got the show so you can wach for yourself and see what he says.Also it was simultanous translation in studio, during the show,from english to bosnian language so i am not missed the point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, as I said, I find it difficult to follow you, and I have read Chomsky in print saying things that are not consistent with what you report.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by hajduk+July 16, 2007 08:43 am--> (hajduk @ July 16, 2007 08:43 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 16, 2007 05:49 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:09 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:59 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 10:05 am
NOAM CHOMSKY DENIED THAT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS HOLOCAUST ARGUING THAT WITH WORDS THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BEEN KILLED IN BOSNIA SO HOLOCAUST IS NOT HAPPEND THERE :angry:
Thats a matter of definition. That does&#39;nt by any means say that he approves of it.
YEAH BUT IS IT HARD TO BE A MAN AND SAY THE HOLOCAUST IS WHEN ONE MAN BEEN KILLED?
Well the common definition of holocaust often demands more then one persons death. Usually that would constitute a murder.
Yeah man but in Bosnia is not just one man been killed,IT KILLED OVER 40 000 people and if its not a holocaust what it is, a bar fight? :angry: [/b]
Sorry, I was being somewhat snide and also I thought you were saying something else. One person is obviously different then 40,000.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 07:15 pm
Well, as I said, I find it difficult to follow you, and I have read Chomsky in print saying things that are not consistent with what you report.
Then Rosi how you understand what i wrote about Noam in my first quote if you cant understand what i try to say :D

[hajduk]

Pawn Power its okay ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk:


Then Rosi how you understand what i wrote about Noam in my first quote if you cant understand what i try to say

Well, I think I follow you roughly, and what you seem to be saying is similar to other things said about Chomsky, so I went from there.

Of course, I might not be understanding you properly.

These smears have been answered here:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9045

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11052005.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/chom-n29.shtml