Chomsky destroys Ron Paul

And today we see Gingrich is about to eat it, Romney's money is in a tax haven and Santorum's wife used to bang qn abortion doc.

The GOP field is pretty awful.

Thank god Paul is unelectable, because if he wasn't we'd be in deep #.

More Chomsky on US Libertarianism and specifically Ron Paul:

Q: At times, you've been outspoken against the Libertarian Party and its ideals. Recently, libertarians such as Ron Paul have courted marijuana users on the basis that they oppose the Drug War. Why do you oppose them?

A: What's called libertarianism in the United States is a significant deviation from traditional libertarian thought. Traditionally, say in Europe, "libertarian" meant the anti-state wing of the socialist party. In the United States, "libertarian" means ultra-capitalist; it means permitting capitalist institutions to function essentially without constraint, or virtually with no constraint. That's a recipe for one of the worst kinds of tyranny that exists: unaccountable corporate tyranny. Take a look at individual libertarians -- say Ron Paul. He may be perfectly sincere, but as I read his programs and other programs of the Libertarian Party or the Cato Institute and so on, they essentially would give free rein to unaccountable concentrations of private power. And that's about the worst kind of tyranny you can imagine. Whatever government is -- say our government -- it's to some extent accountable to the public, and the public can compel it to be fairly accountable, at least in principle. That's why we have things like New Deal reforms and so on: It's public pressure. On the other hand, you and I can say nothing about the policies of Goldman Sachs or General Electric. In principle, our only relationship to those institutions is to consume what they produce or to serve them as an obedient work force. We can maybe own some shares, but that's meaningless given the concentration of shareholding. So they're essentially unaccountable to the public except through a regulatory apparatus that can be developed through the state in our society, which can somewhat tame the excesses and destructive capacities of these institutions.

www.chomsky.info...

People, particularly people who are interested in issues, really ought to break their Chomsky habit.

Chomsky's main purpose, at this late stage in his life, seems to be to tangle up as large a segment of the intelligentsia as possible into an irrelevant centripedal spiral of academic gobbledygook.

It's the linguist in him. He speaks in tongues. He's right when he says that even communicating under the current circumstances is an achievement. Never more so than at a Chomsky lecture.

Chomsky is wildly successful at one thing though, keeping his constituency of inexperienced eggheads in their seats.

He is the arch anti-activist of our time. He's like the lead trombonist in the dance band on the Titanic.

I used to like the guy and to take him seriously, but now I loathe him. He's not part of the solution. He's part of the problem.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Nothing like shooting the messenger when you can't argue with the message.

I don't always agree with Chomsky's conclusions, but his head for history is pretty undeniable.

There's nothing in any of these Chomsky stuff on Libertarians that their own website doesn't at least imply. And, as I keep finding out, a lot of Libertarians believe this stuff (e.g. the constitution says free elementary education is anti-American).

For every connection Chomsky makes that is basically just a well informed opinion he offers 10 good history lessons for people that take rhetoric as history and the media at face value.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
I don't always agree with Chomsky's conclusions, but his head for history is pretty undeniable.

Chomsky is a first class academic. His departure from linguistics into political commentary was a stunning breath of fresh air. He has captivated a couple of generations of university students with his insights and counter-commentary to the line of "received" propaganda that most Americans are flooded with every day of their lives.

That work is outstanding.

My problem with Chomsky, particularly the later Chomsky, is the element of world weariness that permeates many of his observations of the last decade or so. His comments on 9/11 and the JFK assassination are deplorable. They are an abdication of responsibility.

His world view doesn't seem to include a criminal justice system where any international felon is ever brought to book. He's become a wool gatherer who straightens people out on the real meaning of terms like libertarian in the history of ideas. It's the high brow equivalent of telling people not to call Pepsi, "coke".

Considering the state of the world, particularly America, the stuff peddled by Chomsky is intellectual drivel.

Chomsky is dangerous because his analysis never leads to action. It just leads to more and more analysis.

Turn off the TV and turn off Chomsky.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
He's become a wool gatherer who straightens people out on the real meaning of terms like libertarian in the history of ideas. It's the high brow equivalent of telling people not to call Pepsi, "coke".

The reason for that is because if you confuse coke with pepsi you are likely to be supporting something that does not have your best interest at heart.

Left wing terminology has been appropriated in the US by right wing revisionists. Chomsky can't talk about libertarian socialism without first explaining the true meaning of those terms. The reason the debates become about the meaning of terms, rather that what should be done to change the system, is because most people are ignorant of history, and won't let go of the very conditioning that keeps them oppressed under the soul destroying exploitation of the capitalist system.

reply to post by ipsedixit


I think you've gotten a bit to close to this.

Chomsky is a linguist and a historian and a political mouthpiece for his ideology. He's not a policeman.

That being said he DOES talk about justice all the time and call out criminals, as he sees it.

His view that 9/11 wasn't an inside job isn't deplorable. That's the common view (and the only one with real evidence in my, and any many millions of other "not idiots," opinion).

Your argument is the equivalent of saying, "Chris Hitchens was wrong about atheism, because he supported the Iraq war". You may disagree with the conclusions Chomsky has reached, but all the other hyperbolic name-calling is really a reflection of you. Not him.

And as has been pointed out, his view of Libertarianism is accurate. The rest of he debate is simply, "is that accurate information affect in any way by the nature of the person relating it?"

I think it's intellectually dishonest to say it is.

Separate fact from your beliefs.

Finally, just to underline this, there is NO danger is someone's analysis never leading to action. That's a lie. Maybe you misspoke, but if you think the point of knowledge is action you are wrong.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Finally, just to underline this, there is NO danger is someone's analysis never leading to action. That's a lie. Maybe you misspoke, but if you think the point of knowledge is action you are wrong.

I disagree with that, particularly when it comes to political analysis. Just the fact that you would defend the "ivory tower intellectualism" of someone like Chomsky, particularly at this point in history is a measure of the effectiveness of this man's poison.

I don't think young people should be exposed to him, personally. A lecture by Chomsky of the later period, given to young people is, in my opinion, the intellectual equivalent of giving a garden a light dusting of agent orange. It will stunt the growth and lead to intellectual atrophy.

I am not an academic and can't really assess him as a historian would, but based on what reading I have done, Chomsky, it seems to me, has been infected with the viewpoint A.J.P. Taylor expressed in his The Origins of the Second World War, that nations are like beings with their own behavior patterns and psychology that individuals have very little power to change or direct.

Of course there is validity to this point of view. It may be futile to try to seize control of the wheel of a runaway bus if one is just a passenger, but surely it is even more futile and foolish not to try.

Chomsky is a passenger on the bus with only an academic interest in what the driver is doing. It disturbs me to think that many young people seem to think that that is a perfectly acceptable attitude to take.

Intellectual distance is a cop out. One that has been responsible for untold amounts of suffering in the world.

Chomsky is poison.

reply to post by ipsedixit


That's all wildly hyperbolic.

Knowledge gives people options that ignorance does not.

Claiming that with his knowledge his reaction, which you disagree with, undermines the knowledge itself and further still, that his inaction makes him poison, is just really silly.

You may chose to do something different than he does, with the same information, but judging him so severely, based on your opinion of his inaction, in this situation, is absurd to the extreme.

There's a lot of people that have taken his knowledge and used it as a way into a more honest understand of the world, for instance. Your desire to... what... have him be silent?... would potentially prevent a lot of people from learning a lot of useful information.

Surely that alone undermines your extreme reaction.

And btw: intellectual distance in NOT a cop out. He doesn't really possess it; he acts by speaking and spreading information. It's not a cop out though.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

As far as I am concerned, going to a lecture by Chomsky is roughly the equivalent of going to an opium den.

His hold on university students just amazes me and makes me shudder.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Not unlike Ron Paul's hold on ATS posters. It's kinda funny to see one attack the other.

ETA: I do agree with what you say about Chomsky's views on 9/11 and JFK. I started reading less of his stuff when I discovered that.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Again, I think that's so far beyond reasonable as to be nonsense.

Yeah, he has a lot of fans, but that's because few people are saying what he's saying as publicly and because he's been saying this stuff for years and years...

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

For real though, your aversion is irrational.

You can disagree with him factually, or disagree with his analysis, but to take such an extreme position on him because he doesn't do what you do:

- change the world with his actions
- reject all knowledge that doesn't lead to action
- avoid sharing info unless you're sure your audience will act on it

...is, IMO, irrational. He's just not as awesome as you are.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
ETA: I do agree with what you say about Chomsky's views on 9/11 and JFK. I started reading less of his stuff when I discovered that.

Chomsky is an obvious "gatekeeper". He's been "supping with the devil" for a long time now by teaching at MIT. I don't think his spoon has been long enough. "If you are going to sup with the devil, you need a long spoon."

Poor Chomsky. I'm sure that he must be disgusted with himself.

How long is your spoon, captainnotsoobvious?

reply to post by ipsedixit


Paranoid much?

It's obvious to me that the Paul folks have no response to Chomsky's comments and history lesson other than an attack on Chomsky.

Which is funny cause they all dragged him out when he said he agreed with something Paul said.

Chomsky, great when he agrees with Paul, dangerous and corrupt when he doesn't.

Interesting.