Noam Chomsky - a true genius

reply to post by The Old American


So you think right wing libertarianism is the only way to your so called "freedom"?

reply to post by alomaha


oops, my bad! I meant to highlight Z Magazine as a publication that has Chomsky's articles. The other publication is also good; check archives for articles about/by Chomsky.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

If you had bothered to read what I posted ... you'd see that I don't deny that at all.
Chomsky said that Israel and America are the MOST dangerous things on the planet.
That's absurd. I said that STUPIDITY .. EGO .. CORPORATE $$ ... RELIGIOUS FANATICISM ..
they are all equally dangerous and it's impossible to say what the MOST dangerous thing
on the planet is.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He's the same YUTZ that said America and Israel are the greatest threat to world peace.
Sorry .. but I'm not impressed with his supposed 'genius'.

It says in the title of the link you provided that it was a threat to world peace and not the greatest threat in the world.

Don't make foolish leaps of logic and take things out of context.

And maybe the reason for this really is:

Originally posted by FlyersFan

That's you not being accurate. Probably for your own emotional reasons.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by The Old American

 

So you think right wing libertarianism is the only way to your so called "freedom"?

Why do you continue to spew wrong? Modern libertarian ideology has nothing to do with "right wing". It's moderate if anything, rejecting typical right side ideologies such as militarism, corporate welfare, "trickle-down" economics, etc. But it also rejects leftist policies, like unchecked welfare, heavy entitlement spending, central planning, and taxing citizens into submission.

It's the ideology of rational people. Maybe you should lay off the posting wrong stuff until you can study up. Did you even listen to what he said? "Here "libertarian" means "extreme advocate of total tyranny." Wow, such a genius! You gave me a laugh there, RS. Thanks for posting the biggest piece of crap I've seen in a while!

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

Modern libertarian ideology has nothing to do with "right wing"

You can play stupid all you want but 99% of people that call themselves libertarians are just right wing ultra-conservatives. Most want to make abortion illegal, against gay marriage, and have no problem voting for wars. Yet claim to be libertarian... Like their god Ron Paul.

Right-libertarianism names several related libertarian political philosophies which support private ownership of land and other natural resources, as opposed to ownership by society as a whole or owing payment to society for private appropriation.[1] The term is typically used to differentiate privatist forms of libertarianism from left-libertarianism; which generally supports societal ownership of resources, economic democracy, and egalitarianism.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's the ideology of rational people

Uh...no. If you want to return to the age of the robber baron then be my guest...just don't take the rest of the country with you

Maybe you should lay off the posting wrong stuff until you can study up

Pretty sure you're just mad over me proving you wrong. You thought libertarianism was only your right wing koolaid kind, that's why you had to edit your initial post on the last page. I know what you said, hence why my reply back there now makes really no sense.

reply to post by The Old American

But it also rejects leftist policies, like unchecked welfare, heavy entitlement spending, central planning, and taxing citizens into submission.

Those are not Leftist policies but Democrat and Republican policies or rather Corporatist policies. Libertarianism has a Left side as well (*waves*) and I wouldn't classify Ron Paul as a true Libertarian though definitely more Libertarian than the majority of DC currently. Capitalism works only for the super rich when regulations are non existent or pulled out of someone's ass. We are seeing the truth of this come into play as the middle class is devoured by the very system it carried on it's back. Free Market was never intended to mean free to make money by any means possible (exploitation). I'm not sure that Ron Paul ever embraced that.

Originally posted by The Old American
He's commenting on a subject that he has no clue of. Libertarian ideology is anti-corporatist. Chomsky is against individualism or individual freedom. He's the quintessential progressive liberal.

He has far bigger clue than you do. Corporatism is a capitalist institution. American Libertarians are pro-capitalist. You will never get capitalists to not incorporate because it is in their best interest. Most pro-capitalists who are against corporatism are simply clueless about capitalism. Go talk to an actual capitalist and see if they want to get of corporations.

Chomsky is a true libertarian, a libertarian socialist, he is not a liberal. Libertarianism was originally, as still is most places outside of America, a left-wing term used by Anarchists. Libertarian socialism is not against individual freedom, it secures your individual freedom.

150 years of Libertarian



And from the UK The Libertarian Alliance..

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

Anyone who was apposed to the state, or were for government reform were considered of the left (not big government). If you wanted to maintain the traditional state and economic system you were of the right (not small government).

1. Isn't Libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come across the so-called "libertarian" right. As discussed in section A.1.3, the word "libertarian" has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. Indeed, outside of North America "libertarian" is still essentially used as an equivalent of "anarchist" and as a shortened version of "libertarian socialist."

This in itself does not, of course, prove that the term "libertarian socialist" is free of contradiction. However, as we will show below, the claim that the term is self-contradictory rests on the assumption that socialism requires the state in order to exist and that socialism is incompatible with liberty (and the equally fallacious claim that capitalism is libertarian and does not need the state). This assumption, as is often true of many objections to socialism, is based on a misconception of what socialism is, a misconception that many authoritarian socialists and the state capitalism of Soviet Russia have helped to foster. In reality it is the term "state socialism" which is the true oxymoron.

An Anarchist FAQ

You have all been tricked by your overlords to support a system that is not in your best interest. All governments lie you know.

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Morrissey’s essays also cover, at length, his correspondence with American’s pre-eminent dissident Noam Chomsky, regarding the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up. Morrisey, who has always been one of Chomsky’s greatest admirers, describes his initial dismay at his hero’s categorical rejection of the mountains of irrefutable evidence that the JFK assassination conspiracy originated at the highest levels of government. He was even more troubled, after their lengthy correspondence (published as Looking for the Enemy in 2008), at Chomsky’s inability to rationally justify his position. He initially tended to side with media critics who believe Chomsky plays some deliberate “left gatekeeping” function (having to do with right wing foundation funding).

open.salon.com...

Another opinion piece.

Again please go to the source and stop basing your opinion on other peoples opinion. Chomsky might not be correct on everything, and I don't agree with everything he says, but his analysis of the big picture and his sense of history is right on. I can say this because I knew what he talks about before I had even heard of the guy, and like many at first I was skeptical until I actually listened to him.

The idea is to not take what people like Chomsky say and decide on the spot whether to believe them or not, the idea is for what he says to influence you to dig a little deeper and do some real research, then make up your mind. Reading blogs on line is not research.

People who openly question the mainstream are important, because they make people think (even if they're not correct).

Originally posted by The Old American
But it also rejects leftist policies, like unchecked welfare, heavy entitlement spending, central planning, and taxing citizens into submission.

They are not really leftist policies they are liberal policies and the liberals are not left-wing, they support capitalism with a social safety net.

It's the ideology of rational people. Maybe you should lay off the posting wrong stuff until you can study up. Did you even listen to what he said? "Here "libertarian" means "extreme advocate of total tyranny." Wow, such a genius!

You gave me a laugh there, RS. Thanks for posting the biggest piece of crap I've seen in a while

It's the ideology of the confused. You can't have liberty and capitalism. The original libertarianism was anti-capitalist.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

150 years of Libertarian

A system of capitalism without government over site would most definitely be tyranny. It would wipe away 250 years of labour struggle that gave you weekends, overtime pay, vacations, 40 hour week, etc.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

You can play stupid all you want but 99% of people that call themselves libertarians are just right wing ultra-conservatives. Most want to make abortion illegal, against gay marriage, and have no problem voting for wars. Yet claim to be libertarian... Like their god Ron Paul.

People call themselves whatever they want. But if they don't understand what they're saying, it's just words. Those people probably call themselves patriots, too, but that doesn't make them so. If you'd ever bothered to even spend one erg of energy to discover what modern libertarians stand for, maybe you'd actually be enlightened.

Uh...no. If you want to return to the age of the robber baron then be my guest...just don't take the rest of the country with you

You do realize that capitalism can't exist without oversight? That nobody with half a brain can allow corporations to go completely unchecked? Government oversight of businesses to make sure they aren't belching out pollution is needed at the very least. And libertarians recognize that. What is not acceptable is the madness that allows the banning soft drinks, or drugs, or any of a hundred other things that limit personal freedom.

Pretty sure you're just mad over me proving you wrong. You thought libertarianism was only your right wing koolaid kind, that's why you had to edit your initial post on the last page. I know what you said, hence why my reply back there now makes really no sense.

The only thing you've proven is that you have zero clue about what you're attempting to hold a discourse on. I'm not right wing, I'm not conservative, and if you had two neurons to rub together, you'd realize that. But ask a guy to do a tiny bit of work so he can come to the gunfight armed and you get...you.

Oh, and I'll be sure to run it past you the next time I want to correct my own spelling and grammar.

/TOA

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by The Old American

 

But it also rejects leftist policies, like unchecked welfare, heavy entitlement spending, central planning, and taxing citizens into submission.

Those are not Leftist policies but Democrat and Republican policies or rather Corporatist policies. Libertarianism has a Left side as well (*waves*) and I wouldn't classify Ron Paul as a true Libertarian though definitely more Libertarian than the majority of DC currently. Capitalism works only for the super rich when regulations are non existent or pulled out of someone's ass. We are seeing the truth of this come into play as the middle class is devoured by the very system it carried on it's back. Free Market was never intended to mean free to make money by any means possible (exploitation). I'm not sure that Ron Paul ever embraced that.

edit on 16-9-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

First of all: Hi, Kali! Good to see you.

Yes, they are typically leftist policies. Welfare, entitlements, central planning (the accepted definition of Socialism, as explained by economists) and raising taxes to pay for all of it. Those are generally accepted as policies of the left. Not all of those on the left accept all of those policies, but those policies are left of center.

Libertarianism isn't a "side". That's why I said it's the ideology of rational people, because nobody is purely left of purely right...unless they are clinically insane. Libertarians believe in ending wars and militarism, lower taxes, allowing businesses to work, helping the poor, personal freedom, decriminalizing drugs...all of those are normally considered both right and left ideologies. Ron Paul is a conservative Republican with some libertarian leanings. But he's not the end-all be-all of libertarian existence, nor is he even a part of this thread.

Capitalism isn't killing the Middle-Class, government is. Right now, it's Obama. Next year it may be Romney killing them. But capitalism is not corporatism. Yes, corporatism grows out of capitalism, but only if a government allows it to do so. Checks and balances have to be in place. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can only work if there is a brain telling it what to do. There has to be a government to make sure the law is followed. But creating laws to kill business is madness. That's the part that government needs to leave alone. They should referee, but they need to allow the players to play the game. The consumer will almost always come out on top.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Who care's what "modern" libertarians want? The left, the Anarchists, want their word back.

You are not libertarians. Capitalism is not liberty for the majority, it is exploitation. Workers are required to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make profit. Workers want and deserve the full fruits of their labour, that is Liberty.

Capitalism in any form is tyranny for many people in the world. "Modern" libertarians see capitalism through rose coloured glasses.

Originally posted by ANOK

Capitalism in any form is tyranny for many people in the world. "Modern" libertarians see capitalism through rose coloured glasses.

OK, throw capitalism out. Replace it with ___________. Remember "in any form" is tyranny, so your proposal can't have ANY links to capitalism whatsoever. I'd really like to see what you come up with.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
OK, throw capitalism out. Replace it with ___________. Remember "in any form" is tyranny, so your proposal can't have ANY links to capitalism whatsoever. I'd really like to see what you come up with.

Worker ownership, so that workers can earn the full fruits of their labour and we can produce for our needs, in a truly free-market.

There is only one form of capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production. It has no rules other than those imposed on it by governments. But the problem is capitalists control the government, and the state, through their economic power.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by The Old American
OK, throw capitalism out. Replace it with ___________. Remember "in any form" is tyranny, so your proposal can't have ANY links to capitalism whatsoever. I'd really like to see what you come up with.

Worker ownership, so that workers can earn the full fruits of their labour and we can produce for our needs, in a truly free-market.

So, communism then. Of course, no corruption can occur in that economic system. No greed. It's all a utopia and everyone's treated fairly and equally, but nobody owns any property. I see now that I'm the one with rose-colored glasses. Thank you.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
So, communism then. Of course, no corruption can occur in that economic system. No greed. It's all a utopia and everyone's treated fairly and equally, but nobody owns any property. I see now that I'm the one with rose-colored glasses. Thank you.

But now you're just being silly, no one has claimed communism would be perfect. Yes you can call it communism or socialism. I was trying to avoid those terms thinking 'worker ownership' might garner a more positive responce.

In fact Marxist 'communism' replaced the original utopian socialism of Robert Owen and others.

It is just a better way to run things. It is not about people being "treated" fairly, we are not children that need an overlord. If the producers, the workers, owned the means of production we would have true liberty, otherwise we are at the mercy of someone else, that is not liberty.

This is not just a pipe-dream it is still something workers want...

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

It's the only way to secure a stable economy. Workers are not going to send their own jobs overseas, workers are not going to lay themselves off. Worker owned companies are good for their communities, they fill the needs of those communities.

All over the country, people—like the workers of Chicago’s New Era Windows—are building worker-owned cooperatives that root jobs in the communities that need them.

The workers of the just-formed New Era Windows cooperative in Chicago—the same workers who sat in and forced Serious Energy to back down on a hasty shutdown of their Goose Island plant a few months ago, and famously occupied the same factory for six days in December 2008—are doing more than putting together a bold plan for worker ownership. They are likely to move the entire subject into national attention, thereby spurring others to follow on. Though they have a powerful start, if the past is any guide they will need all the help they can get—financial as well as political.

A New Era of Worker Ownership?

The key to global prosperity: worker ownership

Originally posted by ANOK
I was trying to avoid those terms thinking 'worker ownership' might garner a more positive responce.

Don't hide behind "fluffy" terms. If you mean Communism, then man up and say Communism. I know what it means and how it differs from Socialism.

Labor "owning the means of production" is the same as saying "no property rights". Everything is owned by the community as a whole. Sure, individuals can own "stuff", like shoes, chairs, TVs, etc. But they don't own property. Nor do they own farms, farm animals, or crops. That is all also owned by the collective. An individual can't open a store. The now infamous "you didn't build that" speech becomes terrifyingly real because under Communism (and Socialism) you can't build that.

The system we have now is the best of both worlds (well, it could use a little less of the "Socialism" and more of the "Capitalism"). A person gets to own property and own a business, and the government gets their piece of the pie. We just need the government to get out of the wage fixing business and let workers and businesses negotiate terms like they could before FDR stuck his filthy paws into the mix.

/TOA

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by The Old American

 

So you think right wing libertarianism is the only way to your so called "freedom"?

Was just about to post this!

Noam Chomsky, staunch anti capitalist, is worth 2 million. That puts him in the top ten percent of the country. And a guy who rails against the tax system as "using the poor to pay off the rich" isnt afraid to shelter that money in capitalistic tax havens.

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

Originally posted by openminded2011
Noam Chomsky, staunch anti capitalist, is worth 2 million. That puts him in the top ten percent of the country. And a guy who rails against the tax system as "using the poor to pay off the rich" isnt afraid to shelter that money in capitalistic tax havens.

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

Congrats for digging up a ridiculous (and seven year old) smear on Chomsky:

leiterreports.typepad.com...