Is he really pro-justice kinda guy?

Forgot to mention all his linguistics is pseudo-scientific. "Lol, if you prove that recursive grammar isn't found in an Amazonian tribe, I'll just say you haven't looked hard enough, because, eventually, it'll turn up since its muh human nature."

Maybe for theorists and most leftists, but he is still the most-cited academic in the world alive today, dumbie.

As opposed to someone who is intellectually consistent, i.e. doesn't call themselves an anarchist then advocate to increase state power. I'm not saying children don't starve, but any leftist anarchist will tell you that the state causes and contributes to starvation, and only alleviates it as a method of providing itself legitimacy. A quote:
>“The anarchist ideal, in whatever form, has always contended, by definition, towards a dismantling of State power. I share this ideal. However, it often comes directly into conflict with my immediate objectives, which are to defend or even reinforce certain aspects of State authority […]. Today, in the frame of our societies, I contend that the strategy of the sincere anarchists must be to defend certain State institutions against the assaults they undergo, while simultaneously opening themselves up to a bigger and more effective popular participation. This view is not inherently contradictory either strategically or ideally; it proceeds naturally of a practical hierarchization of ideals and of a just as practical evaluation of means of action.”

He's just a reformist, no matter how he bleats about "practicality."

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in an online forum. Obviously children starve.

His basis of "starving children" or in other words an ethical basis seems reasonable to me. The thing about Chomsky is his work isn't theoretical, he roots his work and writings on evidence (half his books are citations) and he has a lot of evidence that proposes that letting gigantic corporations do literally whatever they want is not good. Restrictions etc on these immense institutions in an ideal world shouldn't be necessary but in the real world they are unfortunately necessary and a good idea. There's a whole lot more too it but that's the gist of it. But it's easy to get blinded by your political allegiances and not be realistic and look at the facts. IMO.

Welfare inculcates poverty, in that it furnishes the bourgeoisie with a perpetual substrate of unemployed which may be forced into the labor force en masse at any time. In the present case it functions in a cyclical fashion: welfare is used as a method to maintain a certain amount of desired unemployment (necessary to sustain an economic equilibrium between wage labor and capital, and so stave off financial disaster), and those who are no longer eligible for welfare are expelled into the workforce, providing enough surplus labor to keep wages tolerably low.

IMO its actually hard to look at the facts in the age of informational wars

>i.e. doesn't call themselves an anarchist then advocate to increase state power.
I won't go into this too far because you seem to be misled by the anarchist label of his political philosophy. I'll greentext here too for an inkling of his thought process, but just a little research into his work reveals that it's not a simple matter of his views being a paradox.

>In his youth, Chomsky developed a dislike of capitalism and the selfish pursuit of material advancement.[215] At the same time, he developed a disdain for the authoritarian attempts to establish a socialist society, as represented by the Marxist–Leninist policies of the Soviet Union.[216] Rather than accepting the common view among American economists that a spectrum exists between total state ownership of the economy on the one hand and total private ownership on the other, he instead suggests that a spectrum should be understood between total democratic control of the economy on the one hand and total autocratic control (whether state or private) on the other.[217] He argues that Western capitalist nations are not really democratic,[218] because, in his view, a truly democratic society is one in which all persons have a say in public economic policy.[219] He has stated his opposition to ruling elites, among them institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and GATT.[220]

>cites wikipedia
He writes about anarchism all the time, if you have actually ever read him. Do as you preach and research more, brainlet.

He is explicitly stating his position as a reformist gradualist, in the quote I provided. Nothing you have posted contradicts this assessment.

Personally I think it's pretty easy to call bullshit (if you really want to). You just have to not be distracted by all the shiny rhetoric and only focus on the cold facts.

It's SO EASY to just pick a side though (left or right wing) and then just root for that team till kingdom come. The truth, to me it seems, is that sometimes the right wing is right (yes really), sometimes left wing. And sometimes there simply is no simple answer to a complex and controversial question.

That's because you have literally no systemic analysis and certain political "issues" appeal to your primate brain.

This so much. Anarcho-socialism/anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. You can't eliminate economic hierarchies without erecting a far more coercive state hierarchy.

I have books of his but do you expect me to copy and paste them here. Wikipedia is usually pretty good to me. If you don't like it could you give your reasons why? Examples of issues with articles?
Also, you're getting caught up in the anarchism label again. What the fuck do you expect him to do, go set Washington on fire?

My quote merely infers that your idea that his ideas on anarchism and increasing state power aren't mutually exclusive.

>>>r/liberty

>but it also closes the wealth/class gap, bringing us closer to abolishing the State.

How? You could a country whose citizenry is equally poor because of socialism expect for powerful government bureaucrats.

Well you've convinced me. You do know that you have a primate brain as well?

>muh socialism makes everyone equally poor except for an entire class of statists who control the economy
That's capitalism.

I'm Jewish, that means I'm reptilian. Not even a mammal, brainlet.

Welfare.. Don't we spend twice as much on the military? Has it ever occurred to you that it would make a lot of sense for the wealthy to program people into thinking that welfare is bad? How does welfare serve the rich? I'm not a fucking tinfoil hat type but just think about it. Whenever you think of welfare does it not immediately conjure up this idea of something negative? And yet is welfare inherently a bad thing? And yet the only thing we can think of is people taking advantage of the system.

Welfare: "statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

Well if there's one thing I've learned it's that anti semitism is generally espoused by rational and critical thinking people.

>defends Pol Pot and most other communist despots
>continues to deny the positives of free trade even after 3 decades of it lifting third-world nations out of poverty

No, he's a realist who knows that we have to work with what we have in the meantime. He has often spoken about how in a country as large as the US small changes in policy have significant, sometimes devastating, effects. And he doesn't advocate for more government in general. He talks all the time about our bloated military. What he wants is a shift in the government's priorities. More spending on important programs that aim to help those in need, like healthcare; less spending on wars we don't belong in.

>refers to nations as third world

>mfw Alex Jones interviewed Noam Chomsky
youtu.be/3naksKMtQHo

I remember listening to that one. After hanging up he proceeded to argue against Chomsky. Makes one wonder why he didn't do that while he was still on the phone lol.

nice to see the pol pot lie still getting airtime in tyool 20 fucking 17

>communist China, Estonia, Czech Republic, etc weren't literally the original textbook definition of third-world
read some history

My guess is he's CIA, part of the general narrative control. His stuff is good mind you, the issue is he uses the documentation they see fit to release.

>I mean is it even possible to make all these US intelligence revelation to public when you live there?
Reading Understanding Power made clear it's the opposite: Chomsky works on sources that have been declassified but nobody wants to read.

Intelligence agencies understand the fleeting, contingent value of information very well, hence the name.

For instance, do you think exposing the stupidity of clintonists for the whole world to see has the same value and consequences if you do it in the middle of their retarded campaign, compared to doing it after the clintonists seize the White House and Congress?

Conversely, do you think that if the clintonists had anything on the current president, they would have waited for him to win the election before using it?

>Wouldn't they do something about him if he was really revealing some dangerous wikileaks level shit?
I would give him money from the Army. Just like, if there was a Martin Luther King wanting to stage a certain speech in front of a certain Lincoln's huge statue, and a certain audio system of his was experiencies technical issues beforehand, I'd send the Army Signal Corps to fix it.

Perhaps one day you will entertain the notion that all these allegedly anti-power types aren't as opposed to the powers that be as you might think.

This video made me lose a lot of respect for him desu

youtube.com/watch?v=UbzEHd49bpk

He talks out of his ass so often because his primary means of income is talking out of his ass and selling his shit to 20 year old wobblie-LARPers

>triggered /pol/tards
Noam is probably too smart for you subhumans to understand

his criticism is often spot on in some areas, but he rarely criticises the left, and he never purposes any alternatives.

>mfw COINTELPRO
Hope he gets his someday.

Justice is an abstract concept unless you want to boil it down to concur with formal law but that's ridiculous. Being "pro-justice" depends on what you view as being just.

What's important is Chomsky has no real impact on mainstream US politics, if you want to be a conspitard then maybe if he became to prominent in shaping public opinon then he would "disappear" or be dealt with. Fringe characters have posed little serious threat to the vested interests that be and are valuable if you want to maintain the appearance of openness.

There's no reason to believe a form of socialism can't necessarily emerge by slow negation of existing state institutions. The worlds wealth causing most radical disparities exist in the form of intangible assets (patents, bonds, etc) protected by states. Western corporations couldn't stop third world nations from producing cheap copies of their medicines/products/etc if not for their governments militaries, financed by tax dollars, being deployed to back up their statutory claims on owning the IP. Also there's no reason to believe you're going to get structures similar to the existing corporate structures without the legal regimes.

whats a good linguistic book from chomsky? I dont want to read his political views.