Noam Chomsky - a true genius

As far as I know Chomsky's claim to fame is as a linguist. Granted he has a breadth of knowledge. On a side note , I disagree with him and am amazed at his defense of perhaps the defenseless in that matter:

chronicle.com...

Regardless, sorry I did not watch the full two hours but I appreciate what he is getting at. For those of us who pay attention, this is little new but Chomsky puts it more eloquently than 99.9% of us. Do I agree with everything that comes out of his mouth? No way. He is the definition of an academic. But who agrees with anybody 100% of the time?

Thank you for posting the video.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Is any of it not true? I am just tired of people who are just using the wave of public discontent for book sales.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Is any of it not true? I am just tired of people who are just using the wave of public discontent for book sales.

What's not true is the concept that Chomsky is against personal wealth or capitalism. Chomsky thinks pretty much everything is either not fit for purpose (managing billions of people) or inherently causes corruption.

He DOESN'T think that you should be paid for your work.

Trying to discount him, completely, based on his money, which he earned, and which he himself doesn't begrudge others for, is rich... and just a smear.

And... he's been writing about this stuff for decades... he's not jumping onto any current bandwagon...

So yeah, piece is inaccurate and a smear...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by longlostbrother

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...

7 year old smear? Wow, if he was worth $2 million then, his net worth today is probably close to $5 million or more! And just that much more rich than the people that worship him.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by longlostbrother

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...

7 year old smear? Wow, if he was worth $2 million then, his net worth today is probably close to $5 million or more! And just that much more rich than the people that worship him.

/TOA

No one I've ever met worships him and you sound a lot more socialist than he ever did... according to you people shouldn't make money for their work, is that correct?

oh shut up...

Anytime this swindler has to comment on political events, its a complete obfuscation of what's actually happening.

He's one of those radicals who likes to ignore the threat of Islamism; why?? Because Islamism stands to destabilize western society - and Chomsky and his ilk want that.

Sure, he obfuscated this one up real bad... /sarcasm

In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.

truthdig

reply to post by ThePeopleParty


Here's a lesson in political logic for you ignoramuses who don't understand Chomsky's thinking.

Chomsky opposes liberal democracy, instead prefering anarcho-socialism, which is 'democracy' taken to the utter extreme.

It is the extreme disintegration of judeo-christian society; it eliminate marriage, it eliminates the family, it eliminates traditional moral values and their metaphysical predicates...

It's a revolting vision to many many people.

Israel - and America - prides itself in it's exceptionalism; in other words, they take pride in their differences.

Chomsky will slander and say every evil possible about Israel because to him Israel represents nationalism, and nationalism in his mind is the 'root of all evils'; therefore, he will for political expediency lie and distort what Israel actually does; this is the morality Chomsky stands for: moral relativism.

And to highlight this megalomaniacs hypocrisy, he complains about the 'relativists' who reject his linguistic theories by claiming there isn't any correlation between the brain and language; he inveighs against 'relativists' here, yet politically, his entire philosophy is based on a relativistic approach. He relativizes away moral differences, imagining all claim to distinction as a cause of social dysfunction, any conservatism' as a hamstring to social cohesiveness; YET, in his theory, there MUST be differentiation in the brain that correlates with particular capacities of speech and language..

He's a megalomaniac who thinks he can just talk about anything he wants.

I actually do find his linguistic theories quite interesting. However, he contradicts himself with his social theories; and he makes himself look like a blowhard when he chides those who 'relativize' when his entire social doctrine is an exercise in reductionism, in relativity.

He is a cynical, ugly, old fart who finds 'order' only by removing as much order as possible. Only 'his theory' could produce the world he desires. No laws, no control - essentially, ignore the genius of Hegel, ignore the genius of Hayek, ignore the genius of Friedman, and above all, ignore the genius of the Judeo-Christian moral order, which fructifies true freedom in physical determinations..

Chomskys philosophy seems to be the social platform of a metaphysical viewpoint completely harmonious with Gnosticism or Buddhism.

reply to post by Kali74


When you say "evolve or get out of the line" - what does that mean???

If for instance I hold to a conservative philosophy - which opposes your 'progressive' dogma - I of course am not "evolving"; so what does "get out of the line" mean?? How does one get out of the line?

Whether you intended it or not, the implication is that those who 'are in the line' need to be taken out. And if the line is a metaphor for life, or for participating in the political process, than your suggestion that those who 'refuse to evolve' 'get out of the line' essentially means "we will kill you".

This philosophy of Action - the deification of the will above reason, is precisely what I despise in the far radical left, epitomized in a person like noam chomsky.

And it also explains the bizarre relationship between the far left and Islamism; of course, Islam is not compatible with Noam chomsky's anarcho-socialism, but there are subtle overlaps; Islam is a reductionist religion. The theology of Al Ghazali deprecates the value of reason; subjecting it to the primacy of Will - in Allah, who is seen as a God of Pure Will, not held contingent by reason (which is an unnecessary accretion to Allah's omnipotence). So on the radical left, you have people who put Will and Action above reason and compromise; and in the Islamic world, you have a religion which see's the Quran as the sole authority in determining human action; not reason, or conscience, but jurisprudential judgments derived from the Quran and Hadith - which are rooted in 'revelation' i.e from a source beyond reason.

So to Chomsky - and his backers (even though he claims the democratic party is the same as the republicans; any sane person should know that his backers are essentially from the democratic party) in the democratic party, Islam shouldn't be opposed, as many in US feel should be done, but rather, should be exculpated and defended and allowed to grow to become a threat to America's "exceptionalism" i.e. it's economic and cultural superiority. They want Islamism to be the weapon which they can wield (or attempt to contain) against the status quo;

Thus, it is truly in the interest of Noam Chomsky to tell everyone what is best for us; it's in his interest that world war 3 happen, that western civilization collapse, that we in the west suffer, that we send millions overseas to fight Islam in future wars - such as the one brewing between Iran, etc - and by the end, they hope, the world will be so destroyed and Islamists and traditionalists alike eliminated from the participation in world affairs, that their minions will pick up the pieces and establish the world government that they desire.

But, as for the ridiculous notion of their being complete 'equality'; oh, it will; it will be a suffocating equality. But above the 'equals' will stand the social planners, technocrats like Chomsky, arrogantly determining for the rest of us how we should think, feel and act.

reply to post by dontreally


Really it's just my sarcastic way of saying deny ignorance. It is fine if people want to hold onto outdated concepts but stop standing in the way of people who don't wish to. You're free to be who you are let me be who I am. It's not sinister like you are projecting.

As for the rest of your argument it boils down to you not having enough faith in your own God so you feel threatened by other religions to the point of becoming a zealot full of hate for the imaginary boogeyman you call Islam.

reply to post by Kali74

It is fine if people want to hold onto outdated concepts but stop standing in the way of people who don't wish to.

And that makes sense to you? So I can "hold onto my outdated concepts" but I need to stop standing in the way of people who want to render my outdated concepts futile??

That's what I meant by compromise. It means: STANDING IN THE WAY OF THE OTHER. If you're too progressive, then there wont be any conservatives left; its liberal fascism. If, however, we are too conservative and don't allow room for liberals, you get the opposite scenario, conservative fascism.

It's either you accept and compromise with others you are in ideological disagreement with, or, your innocuous sounding 'get out the line' means exactly what I thought I means: there's only room for one of us.

You're free to be who you are let me be who I am. It's not sinister like you are projecting.

I'm merely inferring from your statement. Just now, you justified my suspicions by saying "don't stand in our way"; do progressives have an end? Their end is the abrogation of the conservative viewpoint.

As for the rest of your argument it boils down to you not having enough faith in your own God so you feel threatened by other religions to the point of becoming a zealot full of hate for the imaginary boogeyman you call Islam.

Right.

Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential Muslim after the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[6] Others have cited his movement from science to faith as a detriment to Islamic scientific progress.[7] Besides his work that successfully changed the course of Islamic philosophy—the early Islamic Neoplatonism developed on the grounds of Hellenistic philosophy, for example, was so successfully refuted by Ghazali that it never recovered

Al Ghazali is the cornerstone theologian of Sunni Islam.

My problems with Islam are simply based on Islamic belief; Al Ghazli, as said above, is the reason why science didn't develop in Arab world; science didn't develop because Al Ghazali "successfully" repudiated the hellenistic doctrine of cause and effect; cause and effect implies an inherent rationality in physical properties; Al Ghazali denied that; Al Ghazali relegated all things contingent to Allah's Absolute will; this doctrine is called Occasionalism. Occasionalism is a philosophical theory about causation which says that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead, all events are taken to be caused directly by God. According to Al Ghazali, there is no past or future, but only the now, being annihilated and created at every new moment. So a 'cause' which leads to an 'effect' cannot be anything more than a habit of Allahs direct willing.

This accounts for the overwhelming prominence of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. Its dominance is the direct result of the occasionalist metaphysics, the consequence collapse of epistemology, and the voluntaristic ethics proffered by the Asharites. Its prominence comes from a process of elimination. Fiq, or jurisprudence, is all that is left. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 75, ISI books

And democracy cannot exist where human beings are stripped of all ability to reason and solve problems on their own, independent of Islamic jurisprudence based on the Quran:

Many wonder why democracy did not develop indigenously in the Muslim world and ask whether it can still develop today. The answer is that, so long as the Ash’arite (or Hanbalite) worldview is regnant, democratic development cannot succeed for the simple reason that this view posits the primacy of power over the primacy of reason. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 128, ISI books

The primacy of reason, theologically and philosophically understood, is the prerequisite for democracy. Otherwise, what could serve as its legitimating source? Along with it must come metaphysical support for natural law, which provides the foundations not only for modern science but also for the development of constitutional government. Therein lies the source for the “laws of nature and of natures God,” on which constitutional edifices are built. The primacy of power in Sunni Islamic thought undermines a similar prospect. If one does not allow for the existence of secondary causes, one cannot develop natural law. If one cannot develop natural law, one cannot conceive of a constitutional political order in which man, through his reason, creates laws to govern himself and behave freely. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 129, ISI books

I'm not going to debate Islam with someone woefully ignorant of it. Islam is a problem. The state department knows it's a problem; Noam Chomsky cannot be so ignorant not to know that; but, still, Israel must be thrown under the bus, Islamic radicals defended and the present order broken down.

reply to post by dontreally


No. Literally I mean, okay you stand here I'm moving forward. How is that making your existence futile? Or is that you won't get to be loudest voice in the room anymore that you're afraid of? Go worship your God however you choose, raise your family however you choose. Don't get divorced, don't wear red, don't become friends with gay people or people living together raising a family out of wedlock, don't befriend any muslims... but leave me the hell alone to do as I like thank-you kindly... I like gay people and muslims and my son was born out of wedlock I even like gay muslims.

My thinking along with Chomsky's along with other Socialist Libertarians along with whatever other demon you have cooked up in your head, are no threat to you!

reply to post by Kali74

No. Literally I mean, okay you stand here I'm moving forward.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between ideology and action.

I'll concede that you probably didn't mean to imply that conservatives would be eviscerated in your dream society, but that doesn't change the fact that a "progressive" ideology necessarily entails opposition to and elimination of those who stand in the way of your "progression".

A mixed society is a society made up two or more parties that concede out of fairness and compromise to ideas in opposition to their own; in such a society, room is made for everyone, and not just for the "tolerant" liberals; true tolerance tolerates even those who express an intolerance of certain social vices, such as prostitution, public profanity, etc.

Likewise, true tolerance is tolerance that tolerates the existence gays and 'gay rights', even if I believe it's a detriment to society; and btw, one of my best friends, my cousin, is gay; he and I, my brother and his boyfriend just came back from the cottage the other day.

All I'm really talking about is a balance and mutual respect for the other. Clearly, it has flown right over your head.

How is that making your existence futile?

It renders the existence of a conservative moral futile, as in, marginalized to the point of inefficacy.

Don't get divorced, don't wear red, don't become friends with gay people or people living together raising a family out of wedlock, don't befriend any muslims... but leave me the hell alone to do as I like thank-you kindly... I like gay people and muslims and my son was born out of wedlock I even like gay muslims.

you haven't got a bloody idea at what I'm talking about.

My thinking along with Chomsky's along with other Socialist Libertarians along with whatever other demon you have cooked up in your head, are no threat to you!

Given your overall ignorant tone, I find it hard to believe that you have even read Chomsky; could you even understand him? He's a pretty abstract thinker. If you have - it's a shockers; I imagine you've only read him and nobody else, which sort puts you in the posture of being unable to defend or refute the arguments of others.

reply to post by dontreally


You should not presume that because you prefer to display your mastery of the English language that you posses a superior intellect; you do not. It is well and good for a person speaking among academia to play verbal tango, I see no need here. To my mind, matters of current social and political issues as well as ideologies are far too dire to play childish games of who has the bigger... intellect.

I prefer direct. If you choose not to see the toxic effect of American and Israeli policy on the rest of the world I'm not sure how it is you can say that I'm the one with the interpretive challenge. If you have a bunker ready for the day that Islam takes over the world why not do us all a favor and retire to it early? Ta-Ta darling.

Originally posted by The Old American
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.

I'm not hiding behind anything. Communism and socialism are the same thing. The reason some socialists, such as Marx, used the term communism, and not socialism, was to distance themselves from the 'utopian socialist' movement that was lead by Robert Owen and others, and the liberals who were appropriating the term 'socialism' (as they still do today). Utopian socialism was dying out as Anarchist and Marxist socialism became more popular. Later in his life Marx changed and started using the term socialism instead of communism.

There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism. Interestingly, socialism emerged as feudalism began to breakdown. Communist movements originally developed among the conservative feudal peasants and craftsmen. Many of the guilds from feudal times were workers' organizations that lived communal lifestyles. As the industrial revolutions began these communal lifestyles became jeopardized.

Anarchist and Communist ideology were very similar at this point. In the 1700s, both of these movements were dominated by peasant farmers and guilds.

Communism and Marxism

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.

Worker ownership does not remove property rights, it removes the right to exploit labour. You still own your own property under socialism, you will just have a hard time hiring wage labour if workers have a choice to work at a worker owned company.

An individual can open a store, who is going to stop them? The only difference is instead of you being an owner hiring workers you take on partners that become equal owners in the company.

There is no 'collective', the term is used to simply mean equal, cooperative, ownership. There is no 'collective' as you are assuming.

Myth #1: Socialists want to take away your property

This myth confuses private property with personal property. When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create wealth. Working people do not own this type of property—which is why we have to work to survive.

Right now, the wealth of the 1,000 billionaires is equal to that of the 3.5 billion poorest people on the planet. In order to provide everyone with more, that wealth must be commonly owned, and not the property of those few capitalists.

Socialists have no interest in taking away one’s home, car or individual items intended for personal use. In reality, as the foreclosure crisis has shown, under capitalism the banks own most of this property as well—and will take it away as they please.

Eight myths about socialism—and their answers

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.

What are you calling 'socialism' that you want less of? How does worker ownership effect you? More of 'the capitalism'? Isn't the majority of industry already privately owned? You want police and prisons to be privately owned? Military?

We are not talking about government, we are talking about economy. I see though you support the minority of private business owners. I support the majority, the working people, exploited by capitalists, a minority, since the 1700's. You want exploitation, I want cooperation.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

What's not true is the concept that Chomsky is against personal wealth or capitalism.

Chomsky is most definitely anti-capitalist.

People are confused, money is not capitalism, making money is not capitalism. Money and markets are part of socialism also.

If you write a book, as an individual, and make millions, there is nothing wrong with that. Especially if you are attempting to educate people, and not just producing crap simply for money.

Crass the anarchist band made a LOT of money. What they and Chomsky didn't do is make that money by hiring labour and paying them an hourly wage, making money from the surplus value of the difference between what the worker produces and the wage they are paid.

The problem with capitalism is not money or markets, it is the private ownership of the means of production. It is the fact that the economy is controlled by a minority for their own benefit, at the expense of the majority.
The difference between capitalist and socialist economies is who owns the means of production.

Originally posted by dontreally
oh shut up...

Anytime this swindler has to comment on political events, its a complete obfuscation of what's actually happening.

He's one of those radicals who likes to ignore the threat of Islamism; why?? Because Islamism stands to destabilize western society - and Chomsky and his ilk want that.

You've got it backwards. The west has been destabilising the ME since the Roman Empire. In the 11th century the Romans slaughtered most of the Muslims and Jews when they seized Jerusalem. In the 1700's France seized Egypt, the British take it from the French then seize the Sudan and Persian Gulf. The French also seized Morocco and Algeria. What did the Arabs do? They fought back, what do you expect? WWI the Ottoman empire is destroyed by the British, and the French. They seize many ME countries, and draw up the borders that they have now. Then WWII and the US gets involved, motivated by their economic desires.

And people wonder why they have terrorists?

reply to post by Kali74

You should not presume that because you prefer to display your mastery of the English language that you posses a superior intellect; you do not.

It has nothing to do with "my mastery of the English language" - but the substance of your posts that leads me - not to question your intellegence persay - but your level of education.

It is well and good for a person speaking among academia to play verbal tango, I see no need here.

That you even think I'm playing "verbal tango" suffices to show your level of maturity.

I mentioned a problem with Islam, and like an amateur who has never heard a philosophical discourse on Islamic metaphysics - or metaphysics in general - you begin lambasting me for 'not wanting to hang out with Muslims' or not liking gays; what does any of that to do with what I wrote? It's either you're playing stupid - and that only makes you stupid in my eyes, or you are literally that ignorant.

To my mind, matters of current social and political issues as well as ideologies are far too dire to play childish games of who has the bigger... intellect.

What?? You are honestly losing me.. Where do you get the idea that I'm playing "childish games of who has the bigger intellect". Read my post on Islamism again; I object to Chomsky's trivializing of it; and I especially dislike your glib tone of speech.

I prefer direct. If you choose not to see the toxic effect of American and Israeli policy on the rest of the world I'm not sure how it is you can say that I'm the one with the interpretive challenge

Oh dear lord. You haven't got a single idea at what you're talking about.

reply to post by ANOK

In the 11th century the Romans slaughtered most of the Muslims and Jews when they seized Jerusalem.

Are you people really this asinine? The ROMANS!? In the 11th CENTURY!!??

It is remarkable that despite that flagrant error - that the "romans" sacked Jerusalem - when it was the crusaders, who were mostly from France, Germany and central Europe, bout 850 years after the fall of the Roman empire, that people still felt the need to give you 3 stars to that post.

You know why? Because you were responding to me. That's the kind of mob consciousness which rewards stupidity and denigrates actual fact.

It's just sad that people play these stupid games.

I find the very worst perpetrators of this habit are 'radicals' - far leftists. Perhaps it's because they have no appreciation for any objective moral, and how it's not right, fair, just, to support someone even if they are wrong in a particular context, but, because 'might=right' in their minds, its better that you look good relative to me; you could literally write 'blah, blah' over and over again, and you would get stars for the same reason. It's a cult consciousness.

This is the type of world envisioned by radicals like Noam Chomsky; they try to correct problems by correcting society, believing man to be nothing more than a tabula rasa; but that is wrong. There is an order to the world that man must live in harmony with; unless his heart be in harmony with this order, the world will forever elicit chaos and disorder in the hearts of men.

Most of all, this grisly vision of Chomsky necessarily demands the use of tyranny; otherwise, how would people be made to accept these principles?

reply to post by The Old American


I know what modern American libertarians stand for....they are anarcho-capitalists who believe in complete voluntarism and the non-aggression principle. If you aren't an anarchist then you can't call yourself libertarian... end of story. You have absolutely no clue about the label you call yourself.

You do realize that capitalism can't exist without oversight?

No it doesn't. You can create a product and have people buy it with no oversight. You can create a factory and own it with no oversight.