Why does Noam Chomsky have such a cock sucking fan base...

Because everyone who attempts to refute him typically betrays their ignorance and lack of understanding almost immediately.

His reasoning is usually rock solid and backed up with plenty of evidence, while his critics usually flounder around and project views on him that he doesn't have because they don't bother to actually understand the basis of his arguments.

The genuine rejoinder to your most confounded query is that unlearned novices posses a peculiar fondness for masquerading as learned leftist intellectuals; they presume that deliberating about an individual such as Mr.Chomsky will grant them with the same intellectual aura that was granted him; 'tis merely a sham.

I'm one of those people. I do it because his arguments are hard (basically impossible) to argue against and it's fun to post them on /pol/.

Also all you gotta do is tell someone "If you think he is wrong about anything just email him yourself. He responds to every email. Please post the response" and they stop talking.

>posses
Also, why are you talking like a Steampunker?

>proves that classical liberalism is an outdated position and that its original reasoning would today lead to a libertarian socialist position
>literally nobody can defeat him in a debate
>responds to everything with good arguments and plenty of sources
I'm not an anarchist personally but he's a good first step into anti-capitalism

You cannot enforce libertarian socialism its beyond delusional

>literally nobody can defeat him in a debate

Because most of the people who attack him are acoustic brainlets, and when they're shown how they have no idea what they're saying, they whine that Chomsky has too many fans.

>acoustic

Why?

As long as you dont constantly enable globalist capitalism and the police state libertarian socialism would not have to be "enforced".

not the guy you're replying to but I actually understand him, the idea comes from McLuhan you utter pleb

go read some more you utter brainlet pleb

Maybe it's because a lot of his followers are young (his work is reasonably accessible, as is the way he talks as seen on YouTube), which makes them more inclined to enthusiastically defend him. It's the same sort of reason why Peterson fans can get so worked up.

Tell me where he is wrong on anything. Politically.

>is one of the (if not the sole) most important living intellectual(s)
wew

I don't know anything about his works. I'm just saying that when a large portion of your "fanbase" is young, you're going to get much more energetic defenders and supporters.

Why shouldn't his work be accessible???? His style is intrinsically tied to his message
Any what is wrong about what he says?

Hope you're memeing because you sound like an utter dumb

You should read some of his stuff. He has never been wrong which is why I asked.

>as if he is a God and is right about everything.
They're just apeing Chomsky's own style

Chomsky is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that's slightly annoying about his continued existence is that at some point in the near future he's going to die, and when he does, we're going to be deluged with a solid six months of tearful encomiums saying how he was the most important intellectual since Aristotle.

Name a more important political intellectual.

Why does Jordan Peterson have such a cock sucking fan base? I mean everywhere I go it's just non stop dick sucking cult behavior as if he is a God and is right about everything.

Why does Slavoj Zizek have such a cock sucking fan base? I mean everywhere I go it's just non stop dick sucking cult behavior as if he is a God and is right about everything.

He's not even an important anarchist (yes, I mean leftist) intellectual lmao. Go back to high school, Dilbert.
>Name a more important political intellectual.
Even Robert Wolff is more important, and I think he met Chomsky once.

Chomsky's temparement is too mellow. We can't create Marxist death squads with that attitude. That's the only valid critique.

How is Robert Wolff more important? There are probably some people more important than Chomsky in terms of actually adding shit to the table but who is word for word more efficient at teaching you well rounded politics.

o you are part of the pro punching nazi squad.

>punching
Straight to the re-education camp

>How is Robert Wolff more important?
By actually defending anarchism academically. All Chomsky does is point out hypocrisy in events, write polemics concerning foreign policy, etc. I have barely seen Noam speak about grand political ideas, theory, or proposing any sort of utopia. Maybe he thinks it's a pitfall or something. Maybe he just wants people to decide for themselves, I think, so maybe he does have it in him.

Robert Wolff is actually a political philosophy professor, and I recommend you torrent his books if you want to learn about Kant or politics.

...

Yes, but trumpites need to join the working class struggle since they aren't part of the upper classes.

>since they aren't part of the upper classes
This is untrue. Why does everyone in America pretend Trump is only loved by white hicks?

>I have barely seen Noam speak about grand political ideas, theory, or proposing any sort of utopia

100%. I would suck his dick but I realize this. Still If you had to pick one person to read it would be Chomsky right? Is there anyone else like him that will give you a well rounded education? I'm curious not debating.

Yeah but if you bike lock them in the head why would they want to join you?

>pretend

He knows his history and philosophy, but he actually gets curbstomped by reality all the time. He keeps condoning or downplaying shit that goes down outside US control, but his supporters just seem to forget how many times he had to swallow his words when the horrible truths come out.

>He keeps condoning or downplaying shit that goes down outside US control, but his supporters just seem to forget how many times he had to swallow his words when the horrible truths come out.

Go on?

I don't know, probably not. He's a very confusing person to read from start to finish (I haven't read all too much though). But he changed his stance on positivism, linguistics, sociology and politics radically over twenty or thirty years. I read his old interviews where he spoke positively about Foucault and said sociolinguistics would be dead before it started. I even emailed him about sociolinguistics to see if it was a bad introduction into linguistics, because I was taking it as a course. He just said it was a "fine" field and one should just pick and choose. Don't blame him though, it's probably natural to backpedal on certain things over decades. It's just weird because everyone thinks he's some ironclad who never goes back on anything.

I know it's a meme but I'd probably just read Max Stirner to be honest, only because I think post-left anarchism is the way at the moment. You can insert just about anything into it, but my friend uses a Merleau-Ponty reading of Stirner.

You're right, I'm sure certain people enjoy the tax cuts. I still had the impression a bunch of poorer people also voted for him. The flag-waving veterans or whatever aren't actually the ruling class.

Khmer Rouge
Chavez
Kosovo
arab democracies
anarcho-syndicalism working (see Catalonia)

...

>He keeps condoning or downplaying shit that goes down outside US control

>Khmer Rouge
Those people that the US armed for a while?
>Chavez
Locked up one shitty judge, so what?
>Kosovo
Americans exacerbated the entire Balkan War, to begin with.
>Arab Democracies
Where have there ever been any?
>anarcho-syndicalism working (see Catalonia)
God, I hate this argument. I don't even give a shit about the CNT anymore, but they did well against two invading parties. Do you even understand how large Catalonia is? How is it supposed to fight two of the largest war economies in the world?

> tilts fedora

Quote him on all of those. People always call him out but never post quotes. Don't know why.

*dies of aids*
What did he mean by this?

Is this the only thing pseuds know about him? Did you watch that school of life vid and just think he was a gay leatherdaddy?

youtube.com/watch?v=JNkh4pEQDLw

>Those people that the US armed for a while?
He argued refuges were lying or exagerating the Killing Fields and that the media wasn't being fair to the Khmer Rouge.
>Chavez
Killed and jailed bunch of labour union leaders. His policies let to the country being susceptible to the oil crash. Oil money alone didn't drive his welfare programs, he emited a lot of external debt that his still held by cronies and co.
>Kosovo
He said NATO bombings were to blame for the Serbian warcrimes, when in fact they were already underway. Downplayed Croat and Bosniak and Kosovak claims. Supported a Serbian war crimminal.
>Arab democracies
There haven't (except Tunisia, maybe, now). He blames the USA for arab dictators, used to argue that they would become more liberal if left to their own devices without the US meddling for oil, still condoned the ayatollahs and downplays the opressive nature of Sharia law.
>I'm against CNT because they lost.
How cynical do you think I am? I'm against them because they betrayed worker cooperatives in favour of central planning, took away the right to strike, introduced slave labour camps and formed lynch mobs.

>I'm against them because they betrayed worker cooperatives in favour of central planning, took away the right to strike, introduced slave labour camps and formed lynch mobs.
That sounds like every revolution ever.

Chomsky has been slain by Peterson's fame.

>they betrayed worker cooperatives in favour of central planning,

i know about the rest but do you have a source on this I can read?

Well, he is right.
Look at the Buckley, Perle, Dershowitz debates

>a "philosopher"
>too fucking stupid to wear a condom
>mfw

Yeah, most of them. It is why I don't believe in anarchism or marxism. As soon as they take power, when their utopia doesn't instantly materialize they feel compelled to take a hands-on approach to "freeing" the workers, which really curtail workers rights.

When worker's ownership of the means of production didn't work as well as intended, with factories closing, unemployment going up, and labourers keeping the surplus value to themselves instead of redistributing it, they showed themselves to be the authoritarians they were always meant to be.

Workers against Work by Seidman.

I was talking about the French Revolution, mainly lol. It's just the nature of violent upheavals. Capitalism, the nation state, and liberalism wouldn't have spread if it weren't for the guillotine.

>When worker's ownership of the means of production didn't work as well as intended, with factories closing, unemployment going up, and labourers keeping the surplus value to themselves instead of redistributing it, they showed themselves to be the authoritarians they were always meant to be.
[citation needed]

On Khmer Rouge:
"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."
youtube.com/watch?v=idy8m5V8uLI

He actually backtracked on Chavez:
theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy

At the height of the Arab spring, he pinned the lack of democracy on the USA: democracynow.org/2011/2/2/noam_chomsky_this_is_the_most

Direct quotations of Chomsky on the Serbian war crimes:
balkanwitness.glypx.com/chomskydenial.htm

The anarcho-syndicalist thing is the current he himself identifies with. I don't recall if he ever commented on Catalonia.

And you can look up some stuff by yourself, too, like I do. I have to go to my driving lesson now, I expect you will have better posts to offer me by then.

>"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."

"Journalist Christopher Hitchens defended Chomsky and Herman. They "were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretations." Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."

>He actually backtracked on Chavez:
What did he backtrack on?

>At the height of the Arab spring, he pinned the lack of democracy on the USA:

I don't know about this and it's a 50 minute video. Do you have some quotes from him in the transcript you can point to?

>Look up some stuff by yourself
Wow... the true intellectual here. Sign of a retard going for fucking Guardian, since it's the first thing he sees.

>I don't recall if he ever commented on Catalonia.
Wow, you're a fucking idiot. He talks about it all the time. Even retards know to go to Chomsky dot info and search for key words in the search bar.

>We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered
Literally refute this lol. There was awful shit going on in the neighbouring countries. You just know forced memes by Zizek and any hack who tries to take down the eternal Khazar.

hope you crash your driving lesson

>hope you crash your driving lesson
lol

Honestly I hear much more criticism of Noam Chomsky (especially for his atrocities denialism.) Maybe you just live in a communist filter bubble.

Because he's unusually responsive (send him an email right now, he'll reply) and honest (provides citations for every belief, regularly admits he was wrong). This sort of stuff humanises him, and engenders respect even from neutrals.

The critiques of his denials are usually by people who don't actually read him. The quotes of his "denials" aren't really denials in anyway. Is saying we don't have the facts unreasonable?

>why is this person whose work is universally acclaimed and whose contributions to several fields are universally recognized for their importance and significance by both academia and professionals so universally acclaimed and well-known?

Honest, I'm not sure this question can be answered within the limitations of human cognition. We may need to unearth long dead traditions of our darker, simpler pasts, and consult the divine for guidance.

Idk but this quote from Chomsky always makes me laugh, it's such a perfect illustration of the mind-closing, reality-denying nature of the leftist:

Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.

It's like this:

He makes solid, rational arguments demonstrating the toxic, self-destructive nature of corporatism mixing with politics. He makes almost irrefutable condemnations against the corporate-backed media institutions in the US.

...but then he promotes European socialism, which, let's be honest, no matter how well argued for, just rubs most Americans the wrong way.

I am a conservative/libertarian. I have exchanged emails with Noam Chomsky. I sparked a debate with him relating to the collapse of Venezuela. He destroyed me in that debate. I did not have the facts or statistics to back up my argument. It was an honour to be crushed by the king.

And I don't particularly like Jews, but I know when I've been out-debated.

>I sparked a debate with him relating to the collapse of Venezuela.

Can you post it. I'm honestly curious to how he responded. Thanks.

I can...I hope it doesn't breach the code of a personal correspondence, but I'll post it. Give me a minute or two.

"...My main motivation for writing you this letter, other than the hope of receiving a reply from someone whom I greatly admire, is to ask you about Venezuela. Throughout much of the writing of yours that I’ve read, you make constant references to American and other foreign interference in Central and South American countries for the benefit of corporations, mostly in 1970s to 1990s. The involvement in those countries was characterized by financial support, military intervention, violence, undermining of those nations’ democracies, and the sycophantic support from the interfering nations’ corporate media.
Although I am not particularly well-read on the history of Venezuela in the last twenty years, my understanding of it is that Hugo Chavez, after becoming president, instituted socialistic policies designed to reduce poverty, increase quality of, and access to, health care and education, and to generally improve the quality of life of Venezuelans. He funded these reforms with natural resource revenues, with oil trading at record prices through much of the 2000s. He also appears to have done this with little interference from the US and its client states.
Over the last several months, Venezuela appears to have collapsed into chaos. I have read accounts of bread lines, an increase in murder rates in the capital (which have been among the highest in the continent for a decade or more), and even of Venezuelans hunting dogs for food in the streets.
Although some of these accounts may be taken as exaggerated, I don’t think it can be denied that Venezuela is facing serious consequences from the social programs instituted by Chavez in the last fifteen years. And though I’ve never been particularly convinced that a free market is the solution to all problems, it seems as though nationalizing those major sectors of the economy (natural resources, health care, education) require a significant and wealthy tax-base to be sustainable. I am under the impression that the great social democracies of Scandinavia are due to experience some of the similar fallout that Venezuela is experiencing now because their tax rates and social programs, which were instituted in times of plenty, can not be responsibly funded during downturns in the economy.
Am I off-base regarding this fear? Are there other factors at work in Venezuela that will not cause the same fate for the Scandinavian countries in the coming decade? Are socialist policies sustainable if the motivation for personal wealth and prosperity is erased by universal social programs? Is protectionism a more sustainable economic policy for a generally prosperous nation?"

"...On the Scandinavian countries, while they have their problems, they are generally the best off in the world, as you can check from OECD studies, the UN Human Development report, and other studies. They do much better than the US, even though the US has enormous advantages. To take one crucial case, consider health care. The US has about twice the pc costs of OECD countries and some of the worst outcomes, and ranks at the bottom of comparative studies. It’s also the only country that relies primarily on the private sector (the public sector components are considerably more efficient).

There have been some experiments with free markets. They have, typically, been a total disaster, which is why such efforts have been abandoned by the business classes that largely determine policy in our state capitalist societies. The clearest illustration I suppose is Chile under Pinochet, which instituted Chicago market policies under virtually perfect conditions for the experiment: there could be no protest because of the vicious military dictatorship, the planners made sure to rely on the highly profitable nationalized Codelco copper producer, they had huge support from the US and the institutions it dominates (World Bank), etc., they had the direct advice and supervision of Milton Friedman and his colleagues, etc. With a few years they had created such a disaster that the government had to take over more of the economy than it held under Allende. Some analysts described it as the Chicago road to socialism.

The great growth period of the US was under the regimented state capitalism of the 50s and 60s, also no financial crashes thanks to New Deal legislation. Things began to decline under the neoliberal programs of the next generation, as is now well known. The austerity programs imposed by the unelected Troika in Europe have been even more damaging.

The Chavez government was under US attack almost at once. A military coup in 2002, with strong US support (and lauded in the US press) overthrew the government, but was reversed by a popular uprising. There was then a capital strike by the main oil producer, compelling the government to take it over and completely reorganize it. All sorts of subversion followed. There was enormous capital flight. The government did, as you say, sharply reduced poverty, increased literacy and improved health, etc., relying on profits from oil. The term “socialist” is so obscure and misused that I would tend to avoid it. There were achievements, but also serious problems, including the corruption that is plaguing almost all of the Latin American countries (we have our own even more serious version) and failure to diversify the economy. When oil prices crashed, the economy did too. For more details, you might check the work of Marc Weisbrot, Greg Grandin, Greg Wilpert, and others who study the matter closely.

In general, there’s a good deal of complexity, no simple formulas."

Good on you for saying Venezuela is a social democracy not socialism. I've never heard that from a conservative.

You seem to hold me to a greater standard than you do yourself. I present sources you just tell me to look up things for myfelf. Well, I did what you asked, and the closest I managed to get him on Catalonia was chomsky.info/20020322/. He seems always apologetic of the anarchists (blaming the communists for everything wrong in the revolution). Doesn't adress any of the problems I mentioned. Can you link me up to an article in which he talks on Catalonia besides what he read from Orwell's homage?

>refute whataboutism and appeal to ignorance
>accuses me of forcing memes, goes on to push the eternal Khazar meme
I'm interested in historical denialism in general. I do a lot of reading on Holodomor, Holocaust, Irish Potato Famine, moon landing, etc.

You didn't adress any of my other points.

I hope you have a better fate than the one you hope for me. I'm not angry or surprised, however, that your atitude to someone that politely disagrees with you is to wish death on them.

>state capitalism
All capitalism is state capitalism. If you don't have the law on your side to enforce your property rights, then you either got to be a thug or hire thugs to protect your stuff from other thugs.

I'm not him, and I'm not a conservative, but like Chomsky I avoid the term "socialist" because it is so charged and there so many opposing views on how it should play out. My own government is headed by the socialist party, but that just means they are a bit to the left of the social democrats. Both of these parties have ties to the same big labour union, and they've formed grand coalitions.

I personally think the two form of Socialism are worker ownership of the means of production (cooperatives) and common ownership of the means of production (Everyone collectively owns every MOP). That pretty much encompasses every socialist ideology. State capitalism is not socialism.

Revolutionary Catalonia did the first one, then forced the second one (by putting everything under control of central planners), because they thought the first one was too much like capitalism (not enough redistribution). Also . State capitalism is redundant. All capitalism needs a state. Ancaps, in practice, would create a feudal society.

Fagggot kike

Sorry I missed your post, you actually put in work into it, I see. I should've replied to you rather than to that other rude user.

Some of the points you raise have been adressed in my reply to the other user, I feel. So I hope you won't ask me to go through it all again.

On the Khmer Rouge I add (in addition to ) that "hindsight is 20/20" isn't a very good defense.

On Chavez, he went from defending Chavez as a true democratic leader and minimizing aspects of his prosecution of opposition to recognizing his dictatorial tendencies (he stresses executive overreach as the thing that put him over the edge).

On the arab spring thing, it's mostly about him sharing his view that opressive dictatorships are something forced onto MENA by the USA. I'm pretty ircked by this sort of position in general, specially when it is applied to SSA, but it is no less wrong when applied to the middle-east: people have agency, not every underdog that does something bad is being manipulated by someone evil, being a victim doesn't make you innocent.

>the media wasn't being fair to the Khmer Rouge.
Specifically compared to East Timor, which, since most Americans have never even heard of it, I'd say he had a point
>Chavez
He wasn't great, but he's hardly exceptional compared to other world leaders including Western ones, and he's probably one of the better South American leaders in the last century, although that's not saying much. The idea that Venezuela's shitty oil economy or corruption was all or even mostly him is totally laughable
>Kosovo
Don't split hairs, they certainly exacerbated the situation.
>Arab democracies
You're talking out of your ass, most of cold war history in the area is just the CIA funding terrorist organizations to destabilize any county that elected or might support any left leaning leaders
>CNT
>War goes to shit and it's a fucking nightmare
Ok
I think it's most telling that Chomsky is really the only public intellectual who gets held to this kind of "can never have been wrong about anything" standard, his critics actually just refuse to engage with his analyses and ideas

>Specifically compared to East Timor, which, since most Americans have never even heard of it, I'd say he had a point
Reminds of the Holodomor vs the Holocaust tbqh

you angry goy?

replace the name, 'Noam Chomsky" with the name of any conservative writer, and you will be face to face with the answer you seek.

>Specifically compared to East Timor, which, since most Americans have never even heard of it, I'd say he had a point
Most Americans can't tell me what went down in Cambodia either, and the scale of the genocide in Cambodia really turned out to be much greater. He is less stubborn about his error now, judging from his comment on the recent doc.

>Chavez
There were South American leaders with less blood in their hands, and he did make his economy ultra-dependent on oil.

>Kosovo
I'm not splitting hairs, bombing the Serbs was a good thing. The bombings killed a hundreds, but by then the Serbs had already killed 8000 males (including boys) and displaced over 20000 females, who were often subjected to rape, and there was no end in sight to the conflict, which ended soon after Noble Anvil.

>Arab democracies
Sure, the US supported dictators, the notion that they were holding back these populations from better things doesn't hold water, however. For instance, the Iranian Revolution curtailed many civil liberties, specially women's, and non-US aligned dictators did brutal stuff against US interest (Saddam invading Kuwait to steal their oil, Assad's dad butting heads with Kissinger). Chomsky doesn't touch the opressive nature of Arab nationalism or Sharia law. The US didn't support puppet authoritarains over peaceful reformers or people as such, they supported puppet authoritarians over other authoritarians.

>War goes to shit and it's a fucking nightmare
It was already bad before. Even before the revolution the killings had started, with labour unions wrecking each others' shit. Days after the revolution, you had the red scare with more than 500 clerics being killed. Because workers keept the surplus value to themselves, and many couldn't/wouldn't find jobs, you had "anarchists" in favour of central planning and slave labour. Forced conscription. You can't blame all that on the war, which a lot of the fighters didn't even want to have a part in.

>Because workers keept the surplus value to themselves, and many couldn't/wouldn't find jobs, you had "anarchists" in favour of central planning and slave labour. Forced conscription.

Not him but wondering if there is any actual statistics on this. There were how many millions of people in spain at the time. What percentage actually did this?

>libertarian
>socialism
check out this dense fuck

Chomsky to me proves I can 100% respect and like someone while 100% totally disagree with almost everything he says

Chomsky is Jordan Peterson for leftists

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
literally a picture of noam chomsky

I like how no leftists have replied to this