Yes, but he does have a lot of information on how the world works.
I am glad you said that. I sometimes feel like the only egoist on the planet, until I see the news anyway.
I did subscribe to anarchism for a while, until I had a slow 2 year period of enlightenment. I want to join the freemasons now.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-11 21:35
>>2 was my first reaction (and I believe it too!), but you're right that Noam Chomsky is no fool. I thoroughly enjoy reading his works, and he's had a large impact on many fields.
That said, I still cannot understand why such a brillian man subscribes to Anarchism. Maybe he sees something I don't.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-11 21:52
He was raised in a very religious family. It is enough of a reason for me to accept that his faith has blinded him. Apparently he has some reservations about science, which I would be interested to read.
It was Brave New World that changed me, or triggered a thought process that eventually led to the change.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-11 22:32
I wonder what would happen if we locked Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, and Aldous Huxley in the same room.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 8:08
I thought Chomsky was a computer scientist for a long time since the linguistic hierarchy he devised is directly applicable to Turing's thesis.
I am english and would like to say >>10 is a fuckwit and is not representative of the english people.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 15:41
A Tale of Two Quagmires
Noam Chomsky interviewed by
Michael Hastings
January 04, 2006
Newsweek
Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.
Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran. Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare developing from Washington's point of view.
Newsweek: You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?
Chomsky: I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.
Newsweek: Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is today?
Chomsky: I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in 1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.
Newsweek: Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?
Chomsky: He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 17:02
I am English and I would like to ask. Who the fuck is Noam Chomsky?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 0:48
a cunning linguist
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 8:58
Well, he's the guy who said that we couldn't develop tools before we developed language, and I find that to be a ridiculous assertion. Many people are picture thinkers, perfectly capable of learning from demonstration.
He's a linguist, which is why he seems so smart when he talks... It's why he seems to logical and correct. His arguments are so clean and precise.
But it doesn't mean he has any answers. You can carry perfectly correct logic forth from a false assumption when you assume it to be true.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 14:47
>>18
urm.. that doesn't tell me who he is. Is he a politician, is he succesful? What party does he support? What are his ideals?
Also if he is wrong, simply state clearly why he is wrong and engage in debate etc... If he leaves out facts or his facts are wrong, state them and how they render his conclusion wrong. Not hard.
Name:
Andrei2006-01-07 15:12
I like Noam Chomsky a lot, his recent books about the quagmire in Iraq are very good, and nobody minus Bob Avakian, Raymond Lotta, or Dr. Cornel West has really matched his "Deterring Democracy" and "What Uncle Sam Really Wants".
The only problem I have with Chomsky is he's an Anarchist, and I don't think Anarchism has the answers that will actually liberate humanity and get us to a better society, and he has professed kind of reformist ideas in the past... but overall, he is a very progressive and excellent writer and an amazing groundbreaking linguist, and I hope to see him more and more in the mainstream.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 16:18
>>19 Also if he is wrong, simply state clearly why he is wrong and engage in debate etc... If he leaves out facts or his facts are wrong, state them and how they render his conclusion wrong. Not hard.
I don't disagree with him. I'm just showing reasons why we shouldn't worship him. Showing his limitations. Showing how he doesn't really have "all the answers." nobody does.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 19:50
The only problem I have with Chomsky is he's an Anarchist
Who gives a flying fuck about linguistics, as long as you can communicate abstract concepts it doesn't matter how much you tart it up. Whether you are right or wrong is what matters.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 0:29
>>23
the fact that there are anti-chomsky books shows his power and popularity
maybe he knows something you don't know, dumb dumb
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 12:00
We're practicing anarchy right now, by agreeing to talk about Chomsky with each other, without coercion by authority. Extend this principle out to all human relationships and institutions, and you have Anarchism in a nutshell.
>>26
Yeah, I am aware that he might see things I don't.
Problem is, he doesn't know (and nor do the rest of us). There has never been a successful anarchy that has lasted and that was pleasant to live in. Anarchy shares a lot with the final stage of Communism that Marx envisioned, and we all saw where that went.
I agree with a lot of Chomsky's complaints about the current system, but I don't think Anarchism is the solution. If anything, it strikes me as an ideal that will prove to be a lot more horrible than the disease it attempts to solve.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 17:51
>>29
Yeah, chomsky's analysis of the situation might very well be perfect in every way... but what's the point of constant improvement? Why can't we accept some bad things eh?
I think Chomsky's anarchism just casually states that if we can't eventually make the bourgeoisie accountable for their abuses of the prolatariat (to the point of wiping out the petty bourgeoisie altogether)...then the next best availiable system of government is no government at all.
Anarchy at it's most basic doesn't share enough with Marxism for you to draw a such a conclusion.
It's like I said: Obviously he (and others) know something that you don't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 3:35
Obviously he (and others) know something that you don't.
Like?
Explain why anarchy wouldn't succumb to a concentration of power. Explain why anarchy would be a better system than what we have now.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 3:49
Because modern anarchism would call for the concentration of power to be disspated out of necessity via a well educated mass. Not every concentration of power constitutes as a "ruler".
The system would call for a directly representative democracy. One where the ruling class isn't only the minority bourgeoisie. But the majority prolatariat and the petty bourgeoisie. Our system is flawed in that the majority are ruled by a rich minority.
Once some general guidelines and rules for the soceity at large are drawn up BY the soceity at large. Modern Anarchism would be quite beneficial.
Do you really think we should be always ruled by a rich minority of people who don't have the majorities best interests at heart?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 17:18
Because modern anarchism would call for the concentration of power to be disspated out of necessity via a well educated mass.
How do you intend to account for people who actively seek to concentrate power? What about apathy?
Do you really think we should be always ruled by a rich minority of people who don't have the majorities best interests at heart?
Not really, but until I see a working Anachy, allow me to be a sceptic about your claims. It sounds all very swell, but theory and reality often don't coincide. You claim that communism and anarchism share little in common (care to qualify that?), but Communism sounded nice in theory too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 15:03
I fail to see why anarchy should be forced apon people by a group of armed thugs. Isn't anarchy supposed to be about sharing power equally amongst everyone? Shooting someone in the face for not handing over their wealth to you isn't exactly sharing power, is it?
The only place I've heard "Anarchy" associated with "armed thugs" is in the mainstream media, which tries to deflect all real dissent with fear propaganda.
Isn't anarchy supposed to be about sharing power equally amongst everyone?
Yes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 15:39
"The only place I've heard "Anarchy" associated with "armed thugs" is in the mainstream media, which tries to deflect all real dissent with fear propaganda."
is that all you're going to say...
1: Claim government is in a conspiracy against [insert political movement here].
2: ...
3: Win at politics.
well...? do you think anarchy should be democratically voted in? what?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 17:39
I suspect the general idea is that either it'll be voted in, or (more likely) the current system evolves that direction.
If there's to be any chance of a successful transition, I suspect it'll need to go the evolution route. For anarchy to be viable it takes more than just a political change, it requires a whole new mindset. A mindset I don't think is possible for humanity, but if that's true, a political system will never evolve that far anyway.
People are by and large stupid, and they'll use their own little piece of power to make things difficult for others. (can you imagine if the christian reich was able to weild absolute power proportional to their population?)
We need a government to hold a big portion of the power, but not one that can get anything done or use thier power effectively; rather, we need one that can't get anything done 95% of the time, and when they are getting something done, they should usually be counteracting what they had just "acheived". This keeps them out of your business for the most part, and keeps the most catastrophic failures from happening.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 3:17
>>41
It also keeps the government from doing anything productive. If you think government is some sort of scheme to oppress racial minorities/the poor/insert group here, I suppose that's good, but some of us want government to do things like defend the country.
Yes, because everyone else here knows that the idea of anarchy being "choas" is a myth. The word simply means: "Without rule" - but the ruling class beat it into your head from birth that without their rule- there will be choas. That's simply remains to be seen.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 13:06
>>43
And again, can you or anyone else advocating anarchy answer 34's question? Without a government to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, what protects people from someone who wishes to gain power?
I know how it's spelled. Note the quotes. 34's question is merely hypothetical and a casual concern. There are people who stand unprotected now by those who wish to gain power. Case in point: The Fundamentalist movements in the U.S and other countries.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 15:33
>>40
Ok, so how do they organize themselves? What if the organization contains 100000 people? Not everyone can talk to everyone else in the organization and gain their trust. What system of organization do you use?
Does this organization vote in their leaders? You've said this organization doesn't use armed thugs to keep control, so what measures are taken to ensure armed thugs don't take control? Do all these people pay a tax to fund a police force which allows people all across the organization to join up who all swear oaths to serve and protect?
What about the children of the members of this organization? What if the members or people they care about get sick and they need someone to get them to hospital quickly if they can't pay for a professional doctor's services immediately? How will this issue be coverred? What about education and regulations which ensure professional doctor's are not quacks and other fraud? What about the laws and the lawyers, judges and jurys to make sure all these laws are carried out to the best reasonable judgement possible?
How will they all be paid for and regulated by the members of this organization? What civil servants will be there to make sure everything runs smoothly and who decides they should be in power?
Why? I mean, how do we get all these things *now*? And are they flawless? No. The coming anarchy will be an improvement on our current system, rest assured.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 19:46
rest assured.
Please don't make stupid shit up. Until it has been actually tried, we don't know what it'll actually be like.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 20:30
>>47
Stabbing yourself in the face will do good for the world, rest assured.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-12 20:34
>>47
Seriously though, I need proof before I follow something. All those evil conservatives who make it out that you are a bunch of morons at least have some proof that their ideas work, the people who follow them are not completely blind even if they are narrow minded. You don't have to actually have a working anarchy to prove it, you just need a rational argument which suggests things would be better.
So, come on. Answer the questions. Why is anarchy better than current sustems? Can you think of ways that anarchy can be used in small scale in sectors of the economy and government where large groups of people who have never met each other have to trust each other and work together?
Then I will rest assured.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 1:23
>>50
Workers' movements in Argentina. The workers are taking over and running their own businesses. Mostly factories, but also schools, medical clinics, etc.
During the Spanish Civil War, the Anarchists were running lots of things, such as the transit system in Barcelona (which ran with more efficiency and at a greater profit than before the revolution).
Here's one example of an anarchist system that I'm somewhat familiar with. I can't answer all your questions since I'm neither an expert nor an organizer. But there's lots of info on the site.
Listen, no one hear is claiming to have all the answers. Not Chomsky, not anyone. If you haven't bothered to do the research on what an actual anarchy is, then what makes you think you can be shown anything here- on the internet- that will make you change your mind? The fact that you already don't have the answers you seek, means that you will always have questions (some relevant, some not) and therefore always doubt the idea.
It would be a waste of time explaining this stuff to you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 3:58
It would be a waste of time explaining this stuff to you.
Unrelated to this discussion, but this is a prime example of argument suicide. Don't do it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 6:12
>>40
That's great, and everything, but what happens when an idiot with brand spankin new ideas that will change the world comes in and makes a mess of everything? As far as I know, anarchy has no system to control for that. You're completely at the mercy of the uneducated, or in this case overeducated masses.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 9:24
>>42
Who the fuck cares about defense nowadays? I want my roads to be less shoddy, my lawyers to be broke-ass poor because they pursue cases for a sense of justice and not machiavellian greed, and my vegans deep fried on ol' sparky, among other annoyances which are in desperate need of correcting.
For anachists: Corporations never need correcting. If the society birthing them is sick, then they shall remain incurable. FUCK THIS ASININE POS COUNTRY, AND THE DEAD MULE IT LIMPED IN ON. IF I CAN'T SEE WHAT MY TAXES ARE DOING IT PROBABLY ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE I WANT IT TO GO! Fucking bureaucratic nonsense.
If you just want an argument, then I advise you get a girlfriend. They love to bicker.
But If you want to understand, then I advise you look this shit up yourself and learn. Your questions come off as silly, as it's obvious that the answer is in the willingless to *know* the answer.
If you had the willingness you wouldn't have the question- but instead the cricitism to the answer itself.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 20:28
>>56
I'm >>53. That's also my first post to this thread in several days. No, I'm not the other guy.
I'm simply pointing out an observation I've made from reading several mailing lists and forums. As you get older you begin to recognize the signs of a weak argument, because you've seen them many times before. The last line of >>52 was argument suicide; you should have resisted the urge for such an obvious juvenile jab. It's held that ad hominem attacks are a bad idea, and for good reason.
By the way, you realize that this is a situation you could educate your opponent? Discourse is a more effective way to educate people than a book. Instead of saying "go look it up on teh intarweb!" (also argument suicide), you should explain why they're wrong (great, you know your stuff!), or provide respectable links (so/so).
By the way, if you provide links, make sure you actually read the links first, not just skim. You'd be amazed how many people cut their own throats by dropping links (or footnotes, haha!) which they didn't read or don't understand.
Name:
Noam Chomsky2006-01-13 21:11
c = x^(1/x) = x^(x^-1)
I cannot find c in terms of x. I do not know the answer.
"Argument Suicide"? That's fine because I don't want to argue. "Resisted the urge for a juvenile jab"? Ok, Captain Moderator...How about this for "juvenile": You fuck off.
As for the rest of your pathetic egotistic diatribe you can refer right back to >>56.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 21:37
That's fine because I don't want to argue.
Then why did you post here in the first place? To stroke your ego in a shower of undulation? What exactly were you expecting?
If you don't want to take my advice, don't. I quite like how you've fallen back to attacking the messenger rather than the message.
As for the rest of your pathetic egotistic diatribe you can refer right back to >>56.
Would it help if I point out that I've read at least half of Chomsky's writings? The entire Anarchist FAQ? And that I used to be an Anarchist myself? I'm not arguing about your points, just your style. Slinging personal attacks is a pretty sure indicator you don't understand the topic you're arguing (or simply lack support).
So are you going to answer his bitching, or are you just going to attack me again to cover your apparent impotence?
When someone is obviously and so blantly ignorant about a *particular* subject, I think they're impossible to reach and debate is futile. They shouldn't even approach the subject in the first place.
U know how an good argument is supposed to go, in this case however, I just don't give a fuck. It's not worth it sitting here arguing with a bunch of kids about *this particular subject*, understand yet? When it comes to anarchy there are two categories: People who read the right stuff out of a lust for knowledge and know what the fuck they're talking about...then there's those who *THINK* they've read the right stuff out of a lust for knowledge and THINK they know what the fuck they're talking about.
You can think what you want about my understanding of Anarchy, I really don't care. Saying someone "doesn't understand" or declaring their "impotence" to be "apparent" is an ad hominem attacks
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 22:14
a vieled ad hominem attack, itself*
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 22:27
Except in this case I think it's a valid criticism. "It would be a waste of time explaining this stuff to you" reeks of it, even if >>50 is a fool.
To be blunt: if it's a waste of time, you shouldn't have posted >>52 at all. So why did you?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 22:31
>>63
I don't care if you think it's valid. That's all subjective. Why did *you* post in this thread Captain Moderator? Say, you wouldn't happen to be a female would you?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-13 23:09
lol internet
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-15 5:16
>>61
I'M RIGHT! YOU'RE WRONG! YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU'RE STUPID!
Going to attract a lot of followers that way, yesiree.
What a fucktard, they were fighting to protect south Vietnam from communism and allow it to develop like South Korea and Japan.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-22 5:04
CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.
Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the questions of human interest and concern arise.
>>73
His objectives are logical, but the way he goes about achieving them are fucking stupid. Besides most of these objectives have already been achieved and there is no need to dismantle democracy.
I still haven't seen a rational argument to support anarchy, my guess is it is just another tyranny cloaked in idealism, like socialism. Noam is pretty rich for someone who doesn't like free market businesses.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-24 12:54
>>74
But socialism works... It works perfectly. Look at finland.
Also Finland isn't 100% socialist, it's income tax is 50% (which is high for a democracy but makes it more of a welfare state) and it doesn't execute people for disagreeing with the government (which is a must in a socialist government seeing as socialism consists of putting a ruling party in power which takes everyone's money and eventually people will get tired of this and resist unless opressed like in Cuba and North Korea). Not to mention the fact that Finland is 100% white and mono-cultural so any system of government there will work anyway.
talking about Cuba and North Korea in a thread about Chomsky and Anarchy is semantics. it's really off-topic is what it is. you little conservatives are going to grow out of your stupidity one day
....maybe.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 9:07
>>61
Anarchist type 1: TOTC-era Spainish, dudes in fight club
Anarchist type 2: American punk movement, "jolly rogers" of the world.
i said "little" conservatives. implying a lack of education, understanding or knowledge. guys in conservatism think tanks don't argue Chomsky's ideas on Anarchy using Cuba and North Korea as talking points. sorry, it just doesn't happen.
and AGAIN with the liberal/conservative memes? listen, you can argue the merits, negatives and impossibilities of anarchy and chomsky all you want. but if you going to come in a debate on chomsky with the liberal vs conservative thing already in place you aren't arguing about chomsky or his ideals at all. I know you conservatives like to paint him as the champion of liberalism, because liberals MISTAKENLY do the same thing.
for all your collective potificating, you are both WRONG.
lol, i doubt that, but who knows? they appear to be much smarter than >>83,>>48 and co.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 3:24
>>83
It looks seemless, but you can still walk up to it and poke holes in it. As many people on the thread have done. Of course the liberals just fill the holes with putty hope no one else notices.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 4:29 (sage)
I find each side (liberal and conservative) slinging insults at each other amusing. Everyone who agrees with them is their category, and everyone who doesn't is the other.
i said "little" conservatives. implying a lack of education, understanding or knowledge. guys in conservatism think tanks don't argue Chomsky's ideas on Anarchy using Cuba and North Korea as talking points. sorry, it just doesn't happen.
and AGAIN with the liberal/conservative memes? listen, you can argue the merits, negatives and impossibilities of anarchy and chomsky all you want. but if you going to come in a debate on chomsky with the liberal vs conservative thing already in place you aren't arguing about chomsky or his ideals at all. I know you conservatives like to paint him as the champion of liberalism, because liberals MISTAKENLY do the same thing.
for all your collective potificating, you are both WRONG.
Name:
anon2006-01-29 6:59
>>89
I agree more with conservatives than liberals and I agree with their criticisms of each other except the completely paranoid ramblings. I'm not 100% either. I sort of agree with the libertarians, but not with them all either.
On the ol', economic freedom vs personal freedom graph I'm very close to reagan, but I disagree with a number of his policies and am more libertarian than conservative. liberal/conservative didn't spring up out of nowhere, they are classifications that simply cover whether people want things to stay the way they are or not and the fact that we live in a capitalist state where people with lots of money can get quite powerful means that conservatives happen to be capitalists. In soviet russia, the conservatives were the politburo and planned economists and the liberals were those who wanted to buy jeans, drink pepsi, own their own home and set up their own business etc etc..
They are malleable terms, but in the western culture we live in it is obvious what their qualities are. I generally rank ideas in 3 categories, the good, the bad and the ugly (stupid). I might start a thread on my ideas if I'm not so bored.
I'm going to tripfag this message so if anyone starts this topic and makes it sound really stupid you know it's not me
Name:
Anonymous!xqfWdPFTHM2006-01-29 6:59
>>89
I agree more with conservatives than liberals and I agree with their criticisms of each other except the completely paranoid ramblings. I'm not 100% either. I sort of agree with the libertarians, but not with them all either.
On the ol', economic freedom vs personal freedom graph I'm very close to reagan, but I disagree with a number of his policies and am more libertarian than conservative. liberal/conservative didn't spring up out of nowhere, they are classifications that simply cover whether people want things to stay the way they are or not and the fact that we live in a capitalist state where people with lots of money can get quite powerful means that conservatives happen to be capitalists. In soviet russia, the conservatives were the politburo and planned economists and the liberals were those who wanted to buy jeans, drink pepsi, own their own home and set up their own business etc etc..
They are malleable terms, but in the western culture we live in it is obvious what their qualities are. I generally rank ideas in 3 categories, the good, the bad and the ugly (stupid). I might start a thread on my ideas if I'm not so bored.
I'm going to tripfag this message so if anyone starts this topic and makes it sound really stupid you know it's not me
All this shit you wrote is irrelevant. I Guess I'll have to take some of what I said in another tread and show you how it applies in every topic or debate you approach.
Identifying yourself as any percentage of either qualifies you for cult-member status. If you think that they are mutable terms and at the same it is "obvious what their qualities are". Then you must be very, very young or very, very ignorant of the history of the left/right meme.
Liberalism/Conservativism seperated can respectively stand for any myriad of ideas. Together however, it creates a culture bi-polarizing thought.
Human thought evolved away from singularities and we are now evolving away from bi-polarities. That being; reducing everything to a philosophical, psychological and political fork in the road so as to frame and control the entire argument.
In the end, you never address the real issue or the point brought up: [n]"Why Chomsky's ideas of anarchy can't be attacked via the talking points of Cuba, North Korea, Communism or Liberalism."[/n]
Instead (or should I say: Once again) we get sucked into a conservative vs liberal debate. How liberal you are, how conservative you are, what past presidents you identify with: All irrelevant. Argue the point. Show me why it's apt to argue Chomsky's ideas using Cuba and North Korea, as talking point.
It's like you can't help yourself- it's like you have zero control over your ability to reason.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 22:01
>>93
My original point was that you enjoyed sucking on assholes and having your own penetrated by thick black mega cocks and you admitted this, so it is final, you are gay. I then went on to prove you are a nazi hitler, thus voiding this thread about 2 days ago.
>>29 Anarchy shares a lot with the final stage of Communism that Marx envisioned
The goal of Marxism is stateless communism. No "Communist" party has ever reached, or even attempted to reach that goal. They always aimed for self-perpetuation. Compare Lenin's New Economic Policy and Stalinism. Only since Krushchev did the Party's iron grip on economic activity relax. But Trotsky argued that the only two feasible solutions are for the working class to overthrow the Party or for fat cats (like Gorbachev) to transition to capitalism so they can better enrich themselves (see China).
<with-digression
Can the working class liberate themselves? The only people who care about liberating them are petit-bourgeoise like Russian Anarchists during the Bolshevik Revolution, Spanish CNT-FAI during the Civil War, vanguardism deeply ingrained in Marxism, today's liberal faggots, etc. I'm not sure if they even have any contact with working-class people.
>
We're practicing anarchy right now [...] without coercion by authority.
When sheeple lack coercion, they start looting shit at random, even things they don't need. That's called "social order breaking down". Because a few enlightened people would not be a dick without coercion, that doesn't mean that sheeple (95% or more of any society) would. Sheeple would espouse anarchism only if it became the mainstream thing to do.
>>32 Explain why anarchy wouldn't succumb to a concentration of power. >>44
Because anarchist societies are composed of anarchists, who are quite keen on tearing down any hierarchy if it ever occurs. But that is unworkable, see the last two sentences of the previous paragraph.
Our system is flawed in that the majority are ruled by a rich minority.
Yes, that and minority making the majority believe that their goals are the majority's goals.
Once some general guidelines and rules for the soceity at large are drawn up BY the soceity at large. Modern Anarchism > would be quite beneficial.
Anarchism will have its time. Look at the progress from ancient Greece (deference toward the able, strong), Christianity (compassion wasted upon ingrates as a moral code), finally today's market socialism (compassion wasted upon ingrates as law).
It's not far-fetched to say that mankind will be having world anarchism with no property rights in just a few hundred years, since things are going at such a pace. Surely, people do revolutions because of their short lifespans. What's the point of having anarchy in 500 years if they won't be able to see it?
Do you really think we should be always ruled by a rich minority of people who don't have the majorities best interests at heart?
Do you think that the proletariat should be told by petit-bourgeois such as Chomsky what are their interests? Then go looting shit when there's no state anymore. Chomsky says "that's not what I had in mind" while a prole says: "I got a new TV!".
Leaderless resistance cell structure. See ALF or ELF. While there's no cascading failure, the problem is that their actions lack intensity.
What if the members or people they care about get sick and they need someone to get them to hospital quickly if they can't pay for a professional doctor's services immediately? How will this issue be coverred?