NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally agree with the vast majority of Noam Chomsky's views on all topics ranging from US foreign policy to propaganda and the media! Do you think Noam is critical of the US because he hates it, or because he's hoping to make a difference and bring about some significant change for the greater good of America?

I'm gonna go for a bit of both.

*looks at HT's sig*

...would Chomsky happen to be a libertarian?

*looks at HT's sig*

...would Chomsky happen to be a libertarian?
He is a libertarian socialist, he does not belong to the libertarian party and is a rather well known intellect on the left side of the spectrum.

He is a libertarian socialist, he does not belong to the libertarian party and is a rather well known intellect on the left side of the spectrum.

I think he classifies himself technically an anarcho-syndicalist.

oh, and I love him.

I think he makes some very good points and is generally well-researched.
However, his rhetoric often gets in the way of his message and, as a result, he is easily dismissed by the right as a US-Hater or Israel-Hater.
Also, his best work came out in the 80s and early 90s and most since have just been rehashes of that stuff.
'Deterring Democracy' is a great book and well worth reading, even if you don't agree with his stance.

Chomsky is more of an Anarchist than Libertarian, imo.

He's a nut, and not the good kind, either. I'd classify him as an acorn/peanut hybrid. The late Milton Friedman, on the other hand, was a cashew.

However, his retoric often gets in the way of his message and, as a result, he is easily dismissed by the right as a US-Hater or Israel-Hater.

Chomsky is more of an Anarchist than Libertarian, imo.

haha, I've seen people call him an anti-semite as well as anti-israeli. he's jewish, as it turns out. and you're right. as I said above, he's an anarcho-syndicalist.

He's what every idealistic highschool freshman through college undergrad dreams of being.

He's a nut, and not the good kind, either. I'd classify him as an acorn/peanut hybrid. The late Milton Friedman, on the other hand, was a cashew.

the authoritative vote is in, MTAE thinks he's insane - he has to be doing something right!

He's a nut, and not the good kind, either. I'd classify him as an acorn/peanut hybrid. The late Milton Friedman, on the other hand, was a cashew.
A cashew is just a tasteless water-bloated peanut that's been bent then cooked.

I think he classifies himself technically an anarcho-syndicalist.

oh, and I love him.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky)

According to the wiki he is a libertarian socialist with anarcho-syndicalist sympathies but whatever, it is the same area of the political chart.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky)

According to the wiki he is a libertarian socialist with anarcho-syndicalist sympathies but whatever, it is the same area of the political chart.

wiki has spoken - I stand corrected!

Chomsky is a hater, pure and simple. He's not only an America-hater, he's a self-hating Jew.

However, Chomsky is also one of those unappreciated national resources that can be found here and there throughout academia and the Kool-Aid-drinking left. If you look at his views on any subject outside of linguistics (where he is admittedly an authority), and then take the diametrically opposite view, you will be correct more often than if you listened to anything short of divine revelation.

The fact that he's an MIT professor is a source of considerable embarrassment to many alumni, myself included.

wiki has spoken - I stand corrected!
Yes, wiki knows all and if wiki says it then it must be true!:D

Noam Chomsky is substantially too moderate for my tastes, but I agree with the general thrust of his analysis and the essence of his political ideology. He can be needlessly provocative sometimes, especially on Israel/Palestine, and that is unfortunate.

I'll have to agree with the earlier recommendation of Deterring Democracy; it is the best book of his on US foreign policy that I have read. Chomsky on Anarchism was an interesting read as well.

A cashew is just a tasteless water-bloated peanut that's been bent then cooked.

Hey!
Cashews are tasty...

http://i.somethingawful.com/goldmine/02-04-2003/Sporkboy.jpg

:D

Chomsky is smart, but he bores me to dears when he talks.

He's right on some issues, and wrong on others.

I'll have to agree with the earlier recommendation of Deterring Democracy; it is the best book of his on US foreign policy that I have read. Chomsky on Anarchism was an interesting read as well.

I'll have to check out Deterring Democracy when I'm finished reading the three that I bought! Two of the books I purchased are Secrets, Lies & Democracy and Propaganda and the Public Mind (I think that's the title)! They are both just interviews by David Barsamian, but still good reads! The last book I bought was Failed States! Actually, I bought the audio book because I can't sleep without a bedtime story and no one but my DiscMan will read to me! :p

I'll have to check out Deterring Democracy when I'm finished reading the three that I bought! Two of the books I purchased are Secrets, Lies & Democracy and Propaganda and the Public Mind (I think that's the title)! They are both just interviews by David Barsamian, but still good reads!

The Barsamian interviews are quick, light reading, but highly informative.

The last book I bought was Failed States!

I didn't like it; it was mostly a rehash of Hegemony or Survival.

hmm, hate America or be interested in imporving it? neither, i consider him a post-nationalist by inclination, interested in moving america (and the world)into a future beyond nations. Absolutely brillant and often absolutely wrong. He seems to have constructed an idealistic worldview (not a bad thing in itself) and filters everything through this worldview to such an extent that he cannot properly evalute the motivations of others who do not share his worldview and cannot assign realistic emphasis to the events he sees. Definetely thought provoking and worth reading, just don't believe him and step back from his reasoning every so often and ask yourself "is this realistic?" I quite enjoy him, reading him often forces me to change my worldview, but I can never accept his worldview.

Chomsky is a fabulously wealthy pseudo-socialist with morally repugnant, inconsistent double standards when it comes to dictatorships. Can't say I like him.

I'm of the opinion that Noam Chomsky is a linguist, who decided to become a fake-economist, and failed. But he got a following, so he got people to buy his book, and the system he derides made him famous.

I'm of the opinion that Noam Chomsky is a linguist, who decided to become a fake-economist, and failed.

When did Chomsky even pretend to be an economist?

When did Chomsky even pretend to be an economist?

When he advocates economic systems.

When he advocates economic systems.

Only his point of view on the subject is highly political, not that of an economist. That is one of its weaknesses, but hardly a fatal one.

He is concerned with power and how it is allocated, and holds the view, one shared by most left-wing anarchists, that the best economic system is analogous to the best political system - radical democracy.

He is not really concerned with how laissez-faire capitalism would operate if it were to exist; he derides the suggestion that it does as much as any anarcho-capitalist would. His focus is rather on the the nature of today's statist-capitalist partnership, and analyzes it, quite accurately, as a highly elitist structure that concentrates power and wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the majority - in some ways, quite similar to the way radically free-market libertarians critique the present system.

I think the following article describes Chomsky's view quite accurately and again, I personally agree! I'm not saying I agree with all of his views, just the majority of em'! I'm all for individual freedom and personal responsibility; much less on government restrictions, regulations, and intervention! I love the concept of "education, not regulation." I don't expect everyone to agree and that's fine; this is just my opinion! :cool:

Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or her own exploitation... the state is the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
Libertarian Socialists see humankind divided in a struggle between different social classes: the property-owning class, and the working class. Libertarian socialists are against all forms of coercion, state and capitalist, and do not seek to regulate human behaviors by way of the state, including such issues as possession of firearms, drugs, sexual conduct between consenting individuals, and related issues.

Libertarian Socialists see such things as gun control, "speech codes", drug, alcohol, pornography and prostitution prohibition as a waste of time, and an unnecessary violation of individual choice. Most of humanities woes arise from the inherently coercive, undemocratic and un-libertine capitalist and state systems which human society is currently forced to follow. The answer is not regulation or limitation, but organisation and education with a working-class emphasis. Libertarian Socialists reject the "social democratic" solution of keeping the state & military apparatus around but raising taxes to support social programs. These are merely "band-aids" for problems which under capitalism will never go away, and always threaten to get worse. World problems will not be solved by "professionals", free-market entrepreneurs, the ruling capitalist class, politicians or stateist bureaucrats. Only the people, organised and educated, can solve their own problems.

Libertarian socialists believe in a form of the free market - but a truly free "market" (of ideas and aspirations, not money and wealth), not the capitalist construct that exists today which is based on a minority controlling the world's resources and the rest forced to work for them or pay them rent. A free market where workers are free to organise unions without fear of repression, and where exploitation of workers through profits does not exist. People who run their own individual businesses (or trades) without exploiting anyone would be left alone.. but large projects would be based on mutual free associations, which would last for the duration of the project - where each member affected would have an equal say in how the project is carried out and what wages are paid. Instead of huge government or corporate structures, individuals would truly have control over their lives when working together, or alone. In a true free market, production facilities would be owned and controlled by the workers themselves, not capitalist bosses or government bureaucrats. Libertarian communists specificly wish to abolish money, the basis for the concentration of power (wealth).

Source: Libertarian Socialism (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html)

*snip*

I can't say I agree, but that was very well put. :)

Academician theorists cannot affect much in terms of results. All his beliefs will ever lead to is discussion.

He has some really interesting ideas & some very insightful social commentary. I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree more than I disagree.

I would agree with a fair few of his statements, put he does sometimes let his rhetoric get in the way of writing things, it must be said.

i liked hegemony or survival a lot. it said a lot of things i was thinking and more. but i agree that his views can get obscured by rhetoric. i gave the book to my dad to read and he found it to be way too one-sided. my sister felt the same. i read the book already mostly agreeing with him so i dodn't really care though. haven't yet got round to reading anything else by him apart from a couple of articles off t'interweb.

I dont know much of Chomskies views, but I do know that he advocats the one state solution is Israel, which is frankly rediculous. We've seen what happens with that before. In Yugoslavia we saw communities artifically forced together and now we're seeing it in Iraq, the legacy of British focing together of those regions.

I don't know much about his political views, but I do know that he created one of the greatest sentences of English ever: "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously."...

Bit of both. Too often he seems to exaggerate, though unintentionally.

Chomsky is a hater, pure and simple. He's not only an America-hater, he's a self-hating Jew.
I've never really noticed much "hate" in Chomsky's work so much as calm reasoning and explanation.

I'm of the opinion that Noam Chomsky is a linguist, who decided to become a fake-economist, and failed. But he got a following, so he got people to buy his book, and the system he derides made him famous.
If he is that famous and influential, how did he fail?

When he advocates economic systems.
Almost everyone on this forum, including you, advocate an economic system. Does that make us all charlatans, or wannabe economists? No, admit it, you only are saying this because he doesn't agree with you.