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.