Whenever he's talking about linguistics or disproving other people he seems so reasonable. But I can't find anything on what he wants from politics.
He dislikes America, this is clear, but what does he want to do about it?
You don't need to spoon-feed me just direct me to some sources that's not full books.
Other urls found in this thread:
chomsky.info
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
you can check his website
He’s not a revolutionary, he’s an academic. He doesn’t want to do ANYTHING.
>being helpless to change something means your critiques don’t matter and you can just forget them
oh wait. if someone was chained down to a pole but watched the city’s leaders do evil things and spoke eloquently about them to the people, but his tongue was cut out before he could provide a solution, wouldn’t you thank the guy and try to figure it out for yourself?
OP never said it
it was implied and was an open rhetorical statement to the board user, i would assume OP isn’t such a fucking retard he hasn’t heard Chomsky talk about democracy and libertarian socialism ten thousand times
Chomsky's tongue was never cut. He had a lifetime and more of a speaking platform than 99.99% of humanity gets - he used his time to call out the evil his city's leaders were doing and suggesting they should be more like the leaders of the next city over, just before they started doing their evil shit.
I've heard him mention libertarian socialism ten thousand times but I've never heard him expand upon it.
This is absolute pseud argument. Clearly you haven’t studied sociology. The percentage of leaders that get into power out of all the people who theorize about political philosophy is remarkably low. Just because some Veeky Forums faggots are posting about him on a forum doesn’t mean that he will be popular enough to gain any political foothold. The elites are simply a class of society which may or may not have more inherently positive attributes than the lower two classes (middle and poverty). As the progression of society continues, the only way to supplant the old regime has shown that time and time again it is through a breaking up of the powers that be. This must be necessitated by a breaking up of the aristocracy that exists, or would exist in the future had the revolution not occurred, and by transplanting these powers with the inherently better attributes in the lower classes.
The entire reason why this happens is because the elite are inherently not composed of people more intelligent than the lower classes. They are not inherently composed of people less intelligent either, so no extremely intelligent process is involved in climbing the social strata.
It is implied here that the abstract quality of simply making money (power relations) determine whether or not you climb. But it also is a facet of hard work. Regardless of the lower classes see that better attributes are in them than in the upper classes they will revolt and overthrow the upper classes, and therefore the elite.
I kind of got off on a tangent there, but the point of the whole circle is that no, leaders are not influenced by intelligence, unless it is intelligence with power, because it has actually been proven they have done things or encouraged mentalities in the lower classs antithetical to their own interests.
I understand that he doesn't have any political foothold, I just want to know what he would do if he had any
Most annoying thing about Chomsky is that he doesn't either know that political realism exists, or he doesn't concede that it does.
Everyone knows that states do what is in their national interest; he somehow things the U.S is unique here.
He just refers people to Rudolph Rucker's Anarcho-Syndicalism, which as far as I'm concerned is a non answer.
well it's an answer, it's an answer that makes him a fool, but it's an answer. It's so weird because he seems reasonable in his critique of others but then he supports a system based on pure Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
I meant more because it's an under theorized pamphlet, but sure.
what's with the hat? is he a shriner or something?
Email him and ask, he answers just about anybody useless your looking to be argumentative
chomsky.info
does he? I think he's kind of cool and wouldn't mind asking him about what he thinks about certain things. would he really respond? Have you asked him anything?
Some user posted their emails arguing with Chomsky over eugenics and racial realism.
If you read the Big Four you'll know why.
Anarcho syndicalism
>But I can't find anything on what he wants from politics.
Anarcho Syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism
Workers Self Management
Freedom
Dignity
Equality
Safety
>He dislikes America, this is clear, but what does he want to do about it?
If you disagree with the state, does that mean you dislike the culture, society, the people?
What he wants done about it is infinitely easy: organise, organise, organise
Links?
>Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
He's a syndicalist, so either Google that phrase specifically or look into the history of the labor movement.
He's not a complete ideologue though, so you'll see him support things like the ACA out of a short term pragmatism, reasoning that a bad solution is better than no solution
He tries to answer as many questions as possible.
chomsky has never won a battle, given someone a job, saved a life, grown a farm. he's no hero.
Chomskom is literally part of the elite you cryptopseud
He doesnt dislike america he just points out the dire limitations of the hegemonic foreign policy which the US has pursued depite its globalist economic policy. They are not compatible and have created crisis after crisis. Real students of capitalism should take marx seriously. Chomsky also points out the faults in reliance on state coercion. These are obvious.
9 people own as much wealth as 3 billion people. Reassess your idea of elite, shillbot.
he dislikes politicians and thinks capitalism and democracy are incompatible
>the elite is 9 people
do you seriously believe this
he says this all the time
You seriously believe it is not? Anyway there are less than 2000 billionaires on earth and around 8 billion humans total.
Chomsky is absolutely pragmatic. I can only assume he doesn't think it's worth it to engage in rhetoric (and he would probably reduce most of politics to being rhetoric), instead dealing with the "peripheral" to geopolitics and what he deems "empirical" or "practical" matters, such as economy, media, etc.
I'm not sure he wants much from politics other than the fulfillment of Enlightenment thought. If I recall he explicitly wouldn't mind resorting to syndicalism or any such meme version of workers seizing control of capital in order to do this, but he's not that much invested in any particular ideology really.
So, while Chomsky is a great thinker, it does stop at the thinking part. He is also intolerant of non-empirical analyses and very suspicious of anything that is not extremely pragmatic (he claims people like Zizek play with words and say nothing in reality, for example), which is actually counter-productive when it comes to "ground floor" politics and actual ongoing discussion in our day to day lives.
what about people who create public policy for the US, China, etc.? how are they not the elite
They serve the elite. They are servants.
not him, but you're seriously misunderstanding society. wealth may be unbelievably concentrated, but there is still much more to it all. just because youre not a billionaire doesn't mean your not elite. what would you call graduates of harvard or naval academy? losers?
only a complete antisocial autist would deduce bank account equals social status. if it were only that simple.
it's not a literal pyramid, it is a web of sorts, and there are different types of power, different groups competing and allying and etc.
Someone like Kissinger was obviously part of teh elite
I would call them servants. When you talk about the billionaires, You are talking about people whose influence is several orders of magnitude above the rest. Again you are misusing the term "elite".
No he was not, he was maybe one of their most adept promoters. Ask a rape victim what power means. You are blinded by marketplace flies.
Only a coward would refuse to admit that the billionaire is more powerful than he.
Remember when he praised Chavez, Evo Morales and Cristina Kirchner? Dude is a brainlet.
why would i care about what a rape victim says about power? What does that have to do with anything
You think Xi fucking Jinping is a puppet?
Yes i know such figures are puppets. Your soul is raped. Your autonomy is a bondage fantasy.
fag
the every loving fuck are you talking about? my soul? My soul has nothing to do with this
as for autonomy nobody has ever had real autonomy, we're social creatures and have to fulfill some role or other
After re-reading the post you responded to it seems like both of you are saying the same thing. Nowhere in the other user's post is there mention of Chomsky being, not being, or trying to be in a position of political power. This is something you introduced in order to transition into your convoluted political theory. There wasn't much of a need to wrap the other post into this was there?
Soy
>noone ever had autonomy
Peak slave morality. Humanity lived for millenia without slavery. What happened?
when was this m8, are you talking about hunter gatherers because I assure you shit was not pleasant and egalitarian back then
Not even close to fucking true. The master-slave hierarchical structure has existed in many forms; humanity dominates itself simply on the grounds that one always has to be higher than the other, one way or the other. How have you escaped the system, Mr. Sir? Why aren't you and your unwashed friends out on the mesa, the free land? In your RV out of the Man's watchful eye? You're a slave to a smelly cunt I bet.
Who said anything about egalitarian but if you think for a second 1% of hunters controlled 90% of the food supply you are a nigger and a faggot and a liar.
sure dude, it is more unequal now, why do you give a shit. you easily have more freedom and power and wealth than any hunter-gatherer chief
literally begging the question in the form of an ad hominem do you miss entirely the point of evaluation of course you do you soybug bootlicker do yourself a favor and fucking die
That is just not true. I have less freedom than a fucking starving vagabond because i have an "identity". Or if you think eating high fructose corn syrup and workinh 350 days out of the year is freedom you are too far gone to be saved
>because i have an "identity".
so get rid of it. eat meat and vegetables instead of corn syrup, work less, whatever
>ad hominem
>implying
Man, you're right, I should have respected your position and your normie-scum-Leo. Really should have taken the time to argue with an intellectual such as yourself. Sorry if I hurt your feelings Mr. Dirteater
>t.
Oh yeah that is how social identity works..fucking liberate myself by alternative consumer habits? A pleb slaver loves slaves because they make his life easy. A patrician slaver despises slaves because they represent everything ugly and lost in humanity. A free person becomes nauseous in the presence of slaves.
>alternative consumer habits
nigger you need to eat. meat and vegetables are healthy
Do you view everything through this retarded narcissistic lens?
Chomsky's networth is about 6x that of an average congressman. But he still has done a lot less of a concrete push for universal healthcare or labour protection than quite a few of the establishment people.
You're retarded. Any mid-sized state is far more powerful and richer and controls far more resources than any billionaire in the world could possibly dream of. If you're a dictator no billionaire can touch you.
Oh yes the idol of The State; plaything of the elite and somehow you think you are invested, even as you say in the case of a dictatorship. The state is to you the slave what the police is to the criminal.
I only take Marx seriously insofar as I have to autistically argue with his disciples on the internet.
Saying i need to eat is just as pussified as saying i need to live. I live because i choose to take.
How about Pol Pot?
You should probably kill yourself instead desu
you are legitimately autistic dude
How fuckin boring. And yes i am autistic in a sense
Literally watch any of his videos.
Noam is an anarcho-syndicalist, which basically means he wants to remove all structures that lead to unjustified authority from society. He believes in communal living without currency. See Catalonia, Paris Commune, etc. To an anarcho-syndicalist (and anyone who falls under the anarchist umbrella except maybe ancaps), the burden of proof for exercising authority is entirely on the person who is *exercising that authority.* This is different to the top-down oligarchic structure of our current society, run by what Chomsky would dub (and I think reasonably) elites.
No shit.
people who
- have as much security as they want, all paid with the tax payer's money
- travel around the world in 5-star hotels, using the tax payer's money
- make the decisions on how to allocate billion of dollars of the tax payer's money
- are able to hire several people at will, including close friends and family
- make the laws, determine who runs security agencies, who gets handouts and who doesn't
these people aren't "the elite" according to Chomsky-tards, they are just 'servants'
Yeah basically they are house niggers. Why do you refuse to face the reality of the oligarch?
you're braindead if you can't see that politicians are more powerful than rich people, in fact if anything we (tax payers) are their (politician's) servants.