Is he even left-wing?

How is calling him a liberal edgy? His entire style is predicated on posing as a radical leftwing thinker while supporting milquetoast liberal reforms

Noam -"I would describe myself as a libertarian socialist — I’d love to see centralized power eliminated, whether it’s the state or the economy, and have it diffused and ultimately under direct control of the participants."

He's a goddamn reformist swine and no amount of preaching will ever change that fact

>>his

What exactly do you mean by that? He's the only leftist I've seen who actually has coherent, well founded and practical ideas of how to shut down imperialist bullshit instead of making hand wringing pie-in-the-sky proclamations. So many so called 'radicals' just advocate stupid bullshit like not voting instead of actually doing something, they seem to hate that Chomsky is actually practical.

You think voting is a practical way to dismantle the state? No wonder you defend Chomsky

News reporter ideology

>You think voting is a practical way to dismantle the state?

The fact that you state this puts you in with all the other idiots. How is "not voting" in any way a "practical way to dismantle the state"? Please, I'd love for you to explain this.

Define left wing
Define right wing

No, seriously, do it.

I'm about to pop the Chom an email.

AMA

include me in the email

also ask him his thoughts on Wittgenstein

I'm not saying that abstaining from voting accomplishes anything in a positive sense. I'm saying that voting only accomplishes things in a negative sense, i.e., accrues legitimacy to the state. Buying into the state's power will never dismantle the state, it only legitimizes it as a tool of social organization. This does not mean that I believe my abstention from voting is some "grand moral act." But you are a silly man who makes false oppositions, so I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

ayy anarcho-syndicalism lmao

dweeb geek & a chomsky honk

>I'm saying that voting only accomplishes things in a negative sense, i.e., accrues legitimacy to the state.

How? Not voting just leads to shit like Trump being elected. Unless you actively achieve a critical mass of people who oppose the current political model, doing nothing just lets people working within that system get a free pass. You're practically just biasing the vote to the right.

>This does not mean that I believe my abstention from voting is some "grand moral act."

Then what is it, if it is not that? What practical effect do you hope to achieve via it? Nobody is going to notice your absence.

>Buying into the state's power will never dismantle the state

Well of course, but ignoring it won't make it go away. Unless you aim to achieve some practical alternative means of power, then why not, unless you're a republican shill? You can't just go up and say "surely, my decision to not participate in politics will help it go away somehow" unless you somehow convince more right wingers to do so.

Anyone can and he is famous for replying back

My POV:
Left- Universal healthcare, no guns, no abortion laws, free college
Right- No immigration, no welfare

I don't think it is sensible. I really hate when we can't even understand the terms.

Capitalism, feminism, communism, socialism, left and right, conservative, liberal - they all mean different things to different people.

I, like Chomsky, suppose my politics could be defined as libertarian socialist. Libertarian because I believe in the freedom of association and trade. Socialist because I believe in socialized healthcare.

I hesitate because there are many snares. Any ideologue has arguments prepared to counterattack any "-ism".

The worst mental trick was when Americans were made to blame capitalism for the ails they have experienced.

Capitalism might as well be called money. It is in essence the absence of regulation and the reality of private property and free trade.

The Federal Reserve, bailouts, regulations, the TPP, corporate personhood, none of these are remotely capitalist.

But these ideas have endured, so much that capitalism is nearly always derided as vice.

>Capitalism might as well be called money. It is in essence the absence of regulation and the reality of private property and free trade.

Brainlet who can't understand Das Kapital.

I think you are an ideologue, lying in wait to attack capitalism, not with arguments, only by pointing at Karl Marx.

"Capitalism", which is the system of free trade, without governmental interference, cannot enslave the populace. The Federal Reserve can make the money valueless, destroying the wealth and prosperity of American citizens.

>How? Not voting just leads to shit like Trump being elected.
You contradict yourself explicitly. Not voting cannot possibly elect anyone. Furthermore, a modern nation-state will always be more or less nationalistic. Whether it was Trump, or Bernie, or Hillary, the state is equally as powerfully in the end. You cannot have an anti-law candidate because democratic, capitalist states require the appearance of a violence monopoly to maintain a legal voting place. There is no way to destroy the state from inside the state. You would be consummating Plato's idiotic ship metaphor in the negative: destroying the vessel as you pilot it.

>Nobody is going to notice your absence.
Who gives a fuck? Fame is not the only practical effect of an idea.

>Well of course, but ignoring it won't make it go away.
Here is where you treat the state like an ineffable boogeyman. The state is nothing without the people who believe in it because at base it is only an idea. Prisons, courthouses, schools: none of these things stand as tools of domination without people to staff them. The point of anarchism is to throw out the notion of separate administration completely. How can you continue the separate administration in the name of ending it?

Appealing the material power of the state is a sham. The only recourse heads of government would have to defend themselves in the event of a general (i.e. global) insurrection are nuclear weapons, which are pointless to use against the totality of one's population in rebellion. The only explanation for the continuation of the state is its ideological power. Glorified Fabians like Chomsky contribute to this ideological power by claiming that the state is the best means for undermining itself.

Ask if him he's triggered by the fact that Wittgenstein basically makes all of his work useless

He was left-wing at a time when the autistic retards who identified as right-wing conservatives held sway over everything. Then in the 80s-90s we got the technocratic efficiency-over-all-else elite and he became less relevant.

He's gonna answer out of boredom being surrounded by sub 1200 SAT retards at Arizona.

He's a Joo, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary.

>also ask him his thoughts on Wittgenstein

Not at this point, the subject matter I'm discussing is different and there's be no point in simply adding this as an aside in such a general way. Wittgenstein's thoughts on music and aesthetics are actually relevant to my points, but there's not much use in bringing him up yet.

Please do a better job of reading Chomsky. Wittgenstein's points don't actually counter generative linguistics, since he doesn't demonstrate that the ambiguity of specific meanings of words would imply as a practical effect non-discreetness of grammatical structure or lack of bias towards at least context-free complexity.

send him a link to this thread and tell him to do an impromptu AMA

kek

This. Only point that need be made because it informs his whole ideology.