Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

The fallacy of the unrelated conclusion. X agrees with Y on one thing, therefore X is in love with Y and agrees with everything Y says.
I'm not obliged to agree with you on Chomsky or anyone else, or take your word for anything.
We should all play 'spot the fallacies'. It would be fun.
You are not just a science denier, you are a science abuser. There's no absolute consensus on whether or not humans are naturally monogamous. I presented many arguments refuting your absurd 'definitive' claims, all of which you arrogantly ignored.
If you were 'winning' arguments then you wouldn't have to resort to outrageous lies and your seemingly endless supply of fallacies.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Walker »

Chomsky is a linguist.
Listening to a linguist talk politics is like listening to a politician define “is.”

The philosopher Eric Hoffer couldn’t figure out Chomsky, either. He tried to understand how anyone could say this, and puzzled over possible answers. Any clues?

“America is the most aggressive power in the world, the greatest threat to peace, to national self determination, and to international cooperation. What America needs is not dissent but denazification.”
- Noam Chomsky
Quoted in Eric Hoffer, The Longshoreman Philosopher
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

He said that? I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. Oops. That must mean I agree with everything he has ever said on every topic under the sun. If something is true then it's just true. The truth doesn't give a shit about political persuasion or nationality. Apparently Einstein wasn't the best husband in the world, therefore his theory of relativity must be wrong.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Walker »

“Hoffer said he might respond with this:

'"Chomsky loves power. He is also convinced of his superiority over any politician or businessman alive in the United States. He sees the world being run by inferior people, by people who make money, by people without principle or ideology. He thinks that capitalism is for low-brows, and that intelligent people should have a superior form of socialism.'"
- Ibid
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Even if that were true it doesn't alter the truth of a particular comment. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that simple fact.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Science Fan »

You've been busted so many times, Veggie, making unfounded, delusional claims, as well as politically correct nonsense, it's amazing that you are still in denial about being a politically-correct lefty. Your science-denial regarding evolutionary biology, which has even mathematically calculated the degree to which humans are not monogamous compared to our social primate relatives, is really an amazing thing to witness. You literally denied science in favor of political correctness on a public social media forum, while claiming to be a rational person who supports science? You are laughable.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Poor Americans. Explaining subtle concepts to them is like wearing thick rubber gloves while trying to thread a needle. You think being anti war is PC? You are even more clueless than I thought then. 'PC', 'left wing' and 'liberal' are not interchangeable. They aren't even synonyms. A truly liberal person isn't going to be PC. A good example of PC at work: When Trump was elected the PC were wailing and beating their chests over his 'offensive' and 'insulting' comments about muslims, yet those same PC don't mind that their country has been blowing muslims to pieces for most of this century. It's the PC who wax lyrical about joyous multicultural melting pots (making sure that they don't actually live in them). It's the PC who say 'the n word' as if using the actual word will invoke demonic spirits or wrathful lightning bolts. It's the PC who have thrown the word 'racist' around so prolifically that it now has no meaning. Hmmm. Pretty much you in a nutshell. And your 'scientific' claims regarding monogamy are so shallow as to be laughable. You aren't capable of thinking about it on anything but a very shallow level (using google) because to do that you would need a good first-hand understanding of human emotion and complexity.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Melchior »

You are still here? Why even mention Chomsky (spit)?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Noam Chomsky and Our Collective Responsibility

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Interesting OP and thread Gary. From where I sit it is interesting, if a little frightening, to observe some of the contributors to your thread more or less barfing up half-baked, prejudiced, defamatory statements and imagining that this constitutes good argument. Honestly, I don't get it.

Of Chomsky's works I have read: American Power & The New Mandarins; Year 501: The Conquest Continues; On Power & Ideology; Manufacturing Consent; Turning the Tide; The Washington Connection; Necessary Illusions; The Fateful Triangle; The Chomsky Reader and possibly a couple of shorter works. There is a channel on YouTube which is dedicated to his philosophical talks. Chomsky certainly is an intellectual and he is also an accomplished philosophy-reader. It is also true, because he says it, that he is an 'Anarcho-Sydicalist' which, prior to the Second War was synonymous with Communist. It seems to me that his political stance, and what he advocates for, would be and could only be a communistic federation.

I came to realize that when attempting to understand Chomsky that he might best be understood as a sort of Machiavellian, an Anti-Machiavellian as the case seems to be. Specifically I mean the 'doctrine' if it can be called such that is presented in The Prince. It is a simple notion: those who have and hold power must disguise what power requires to have and hold it. While at a basic level a state can be said only to be its interests, persons have to represent diplomatically those interests. This always seems to involve dissimulation. So, politics is intimately involved in dissimulation. It should be obvious that power functions in this way. A given State must also 'justify' itself to its own people, and this becomes required proportionally to the degree that a State allows free-association and free-speech, and when these are part-and-parcel of the doctrines of 'democracy', it is inevitable that people will inquire into the nature and compass of 'power' on all levels. A State therefor must become expert at dissimulation. It has to represent itself to its population as 'just' and 'good' and this is where the Machiavellian art enters in. I would suggest that nearly the entirety of Chomsky's work revolves around this theme, and definitely his ideas about 'the manufacture of consent'.

In my experience, the most direct, the most forceful, the most concise expression of Chomsky's 'doctrine' is to be found in 'On Power & Ideology: The Managua Lectures'. It is not long and is comprised of the transcritpion of 4 talks given in Managua during the Sandinista revolution.

Chomsky does, indeed he does! tell the truth about 'how power functions'. His position is intensely critical and analytical in the original sense of the words. He exposes the underlying facts related to power-structures and systems-of-power. But what is his political position? I mean, from what tangible position is he himself viewing from? His position is abstract, academic and intellectual. His 'position' is one of idealism. But it does seem to me a good question to ask: What is the State that Chomsky envisions? And who has come close to it? He does give answers: The Republicans and the Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War (contrasted internally with the Francoist conservative block). There, for a mere historical moment, there existed people who determined their own affairs according to their own lights. On each side of that was the Soviet totalitarian power-block and the Western-capitalist power-block, each doing everything possible to assert their own power-system. If I understand correctly, and when Chomsky speaks to people, especially youth, he sees himself speaking to those who could be such 'Republicans'.

I think the problem, if I can put it like this, is just that he speaks to people who do not have tangible 'ownership interest'. In a power-system when you have a tangible ownership interest you are, in essence, 'complicit' in the system. But youth at university are free, largely, of such complicity. Therefor, Chomsky's message is very interesting to them. They see themselves as outside of power-politics, have limited ownership-interest, and are naturally idealistic. It becomes in a significant sense 'seductive' to be offered the Cat Bird's Seat from which to judge a) one's own 'fathers', b) one's own State and its power-systems, and c) the entire world with its labyrinthian power-dynamics, its war-machines (politics by other means), and the ever-shifting dynamics of domination and control.

I would suggest that Chomsky is not 'wrong' in respect to analysis of power-dynamics. He does explain it quite well. But he does also seem to cobble together narratives which are made to seem as clearly and incontrovertably supporting his base-position. He is indeed hated by those who are heavily invested in their own power-system, and I mean this especially in the sense of heading-up the power-block that is represented by a) business and industry, b) the political and diplomatic class, c) the ideological class and the intellectual class who construct defenses for the State, and d) the military and inteligence class who stand behind the general system, and, naturally, intervene in it to direct it toward outcomes that accord with the will of its power-engineers and power-holders themselves. I do not think this is hard to underdstand. Nor is it 'evil' it apply such reductions. But what is questionable then? I think that it could be said to be 'unreal' and 'idealistic' to see oneself as non-complicit. I also think that when a youth internalizes these perspectives he sees himself as non-complicit and, therefor, it follows that he must adopt, at one level of another, a political philosophy and a 'praxis' that supports his ideology and idealism. What would that be? Well, if one is already a subject in a socialist state or a semi-socialized state, one is in a real sense absolved of ownership-interest! The 'subject' will then come out in support of his 'subjection' if you catch my drift.

This is where things get weird and murky. Because everyone is 'complicit' in these systems. Ownership is complicity. Having the privelage of education is complicity. Analytical skill is a result of complicity insofar as it is taught. But if one is taught to turn against one's complicity one will 1) avoid ownership and remain disconnected, and 2) develop an unreal idealism which cannot be supported as one moves into ownership relationship. This leads to a strange form of hypocricy which, as an example, I notice our own dear VeggieTaxidermy speaking of frequently. It will lead to a class of persons who are, excuse the term, gripped by a rebellious and critical stance, but who yet participate in the System directly.

When one considers postwar politics and ideology, the American scene, 'the 'American Century', the lies and obfuscations about the European Wars, the Frankfurt School, Sixties politics, the emotionalism and the dripping sentimentalism of this era (excuse me, you know where I stand!), and all of this in the context of interconnected propaganda and public relations machines, and then consider the 'sort of person' who emerges from this, I think one arrives at an interesting subject for observation and study. As you know: I think we have to DECONSTRUCT* all of this, and that it is inner, intellectual and also spiritual work.

I also see Chomsky as working in that peculiar area of Thracymachus. Idealism cannot accept that Thracymachus makes a case that appears to sustain itself through time, and yet can be represented as 'false'. It seems to me that Chomsky shows Thracymachus as he morphs into Machiavelli and then into the modern State.
____________________

* Capitials used without permission of Lacewing. Italics mine...
Post Reply