Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Thank you for the kind words, Chevalerous.
--
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
If Chomsky attacks only the institution, then perhaps he is a gatekeeper.
I think his point is that if we focus on individuals, like the Hydra of Lerna's multiple heads, they will simply be replaced by another.
I see his point, but cannot the same be said about the institutions themselves. Doesn't the beast simply transform itself to fool our perception of change?
He also points out, that one of the major problems in instigating institutional changes is that when faced with the choice of either joining the ruling class are ridding the world of the ruling class, must of us would chose to join them. That is, most of us are corruptible.
Which is why change can only come from the bottom up, under the current system. Unless we, as individuals change, there will be no real, or more fundamentally, lasting, change.
Looks like Chomsky's views on trusts as expressed above, prove this point.
You're right, I think it does. I don't blame him. If he were to raise his head above the paraphet, arrows would fly in his direction. There are plenty of examples of intellects that are unable to flourish or receive far less for their lectures, they usually speak out against the status quo and are marginalised because of it. Part of the corruption, is the 'I'm alright' attitude. As long as you keep looking up the world doesn't seem too bad. The truth only comes out when we check what's below us and has been swept under the carpet. I admire his work a great deal, but, I can't help but be a little disappointed in his lack of ambition for the world as a whole. I think that if you can see a problem that there is a responsibility, at times, to do more than simply report the problem. The less you have to lose the easier it is though, and that is again the point that he makes, and then the trap that he still falls into.
