Any of you read this? is it good? chomsky is based so i assume so

>Authoritarianism doesn't make everyone equal either because it still comes down to people being fundamentally inequal.

True: I was more asserting egalitarianism necessarily implies authoritarianism.

>It's true that there is some cognitive dissonance on Chomsky's line of thinking

'Some'? More like his entire political philosophy is merely instantaneously recognizable authoritarian Leftism falsely purporting itself as anarchism: an irony of unparalleled immensity: enslavement as liberation and an authoritarian state as anarchy. Democracy has an affinity with despotism and every revolutionary tyranny ultimately derives from one palaeo-progressive arch-myth: demotic equality, The Tyranny of The Vulgus which is sacralized as democratic equality which Chomsky so superlatively reveres.

Explain.

if that needs explaining then I wonder if you've interacted with Chomsky's work at all, bc he mentions Humboldt constantly.

idk where you get this "Chomsky wants absolute equality hurr" shit from. he believes, following Humboldt, that each person should be able to develop their interests and skills as widely and thoroughly as possible, and free from illegitimate coercion. if you don't believe in freedom, that's fine. (I mean that seriously: there are defensible respectable anti-democratic positions.) but you can't just ascribe ridiculous made-up beliefs to him and then call HIM ridiculous...

>idk where you get this "Chomsky wants absolute equality hurr" shit from. he believes, following Humboldt, that each person should be able to develop their interests and skills as widely and thoroughly as possible, and free from illegitimate coercion.

Chomsky despises anarcho-capitalism which would imply he believes in a coercive egalitarian state (otherwise, why would he oppose anarcho-capitalism when voluntary anarcho-syndicalism is possible under anarcho-capitalism?).

>if you don't believe in freedom,

I believe in freedom which why I oppose a communistic despotism such as Chomsky's politics seemingly necessitates.

>I mean that seriously: there are defensible respectable anti-democratic positions.

Of course.

>why would he oppose anarcho-capitalism?

bc it allows for the creation of unaccountable private conglomerates of power. states aren't the only entities that can be illegitimate and coercive.

>coercive egalitarian state
>communistic despotism

[citation needed]

Yeah it would be good but it wouldn't be anything he has sat down and written it would be collected from interviews and lectures, probably a lot of it from a big interview he had on the BBC in the 1970s

It won't lay down in concrete how an anarchist society should be shaped and function, Chomsky does not like to give people orders and believes it should be self organised - cause he's an anarchist, duh

We are responsible for the predictable outcomes of our actions
Not someone else's
m.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGyImubRp0

You need to have a concussion for it to make sense
No edgelord

>Chomsky despises anarcho-capitalism which would imply he believes in a coercive egalitarian state
>I shall apply my own ideas and interpretations to the few words I recognise

>I believe in freedom
No, you don't

>bc it allows for the creation of unaccountable private conglomerates of power.

Private companies are accountable by market forces. In anarcho-capitalism, you can choice any or exit any sovereign services provider.

>states aren't the only entities that can be illegitimate and coercive.

Like proletarian revolutionaries seizing The Means of Production?

>[citation needed]

Okay: describe how Chomskyite anarchism functions in your own words.

How is private property and private commerce abolished in absence of governmental coercion?

>absolute equality with absolute liberty is a ludicrous and unrealizable ideal because people are fundamentally unequal.
And being unequal some must have less liberty than others I suppose?

What is going on is not the rightwing myth of a government forcing everyone to be equal, propping up some people and capping others, but everyone having the opportunity to develop their skills and pursue their interests without coercion
Be it a brick layer or a brain surgeon, it will come from your fundamental desires to inquiry and create - not force or class

Yes I do nigger.

>Like proletarian revolutionaries seizing The Means of Production?
How is that illegitimate and coercive? Its their work and production making the wealth
>Private companies are accountable by market forces.
Ah yes, we don't need FDA regulations. We can just deregulate it and when people get salmonella poisoning they will sue and that will fix it.
Oh the abattoir has funded their own scientific papers insisting there is nothing wrong - just like the tobacco industry did for decades - and won the case and there will be clean up.
And they're funding a rightwing noise machine to convince people that hygienic conditions are a liberal lie.
Well. Um.

Equality of opportunity necessarily implies coercion: public education --- for insistence --- replies upon funds plundered from people by coercion; anything imposed by The State is intrinsically coercive and leveling of 'opportunity' is only rigorously possible via The State; hence, 'anarchic' Leftism requires authoritarianism.

>Private companies are accountable by market forces

lool and people call leftists naive

>Like proletarian revolutionaries seizing The Means of Production?

Chomsky is not a Marxist

>describe how Chomskyite anarchism functions in your own words

how about his words? I'll just leave this here: youtu.be/h_x0Y3FqkEI

>How is that illegitimate and coercive? Its their work and production making the wealth

Labor Theory of Value is BS: labor is only one factor of production and receives just compensation as determined by free market price discovery.

>Ah yes, we don't need FDA regulations. We can just deregulate it and when people get salmonella poisoning they will sue and that will fix it.

>Oh the abattoir has funded their own scientific papers insisting there is nothing wrong - just like the tobacco industry did for decades - and won the case and there will be clean up.

I could describe how pollution is in violation of private property rights but I see you have fully renounced deontological anarchism; at least you are proffering forth philosophical honesty.

>lool and people call leftists naive

Private companies can be effectively checked by financial exit: a state --- in contrast --- forces contribution and compliance.

wahhh i don't like it when people call capitalists, the corporate media and the state out on their bullshit

we get it dude, you drink mountain dew

States can be effectively checked by voters: a private company --- in contrast --- forces contribution and compliance.

two can play your dumb game

>Private companies can be effectively checked by financial exit:
Nope
>a state --- in contrast --- forces contribution and compliance.
Mommy, what's an election?

>Private companies can be effectively checked by financial exit
But they will produce mountains of disinformation and sue their critics and fund rightwing noise machine
All of which will add up to mean for example that people believe that climate change is not happening, its a liberal myth, a Chinese hoax, a conspiracy to institute a NWO to tax our precious bodily carbons

How do you check this with financial exit?

>hygienic conditions are a liberal lie.
I lol'd
Anyone who denies this is a shill for the CATO Institute

>Labor Theory of Value is BS
Well, you proved me wrong.
>just one factor
Yes there are the designers and engineers and scientists too, also working for wage selling the sweat of their work rather than working for their own pleasure
They would of course be part of the workers co-operative
>I could describe how pollution is in violation of private property rights but I see you have fully renounced deontological anarchism; at least you are proffering forth philosophical honesty.
I work in the food industry.
The only thing keeping the managers and bosses in check is oh&s and safe food handling regulations.
As usual the economic school theories that sound great (but incidentally add up to benefiting established wealth and power) fails when it meets the real world (except for the incidental benefit part)

There are two supermarket chains in America publix and winco that are employee owned.
Staff earn a higher wage than at other supermarkets.

This.

Anarchism doesn't make sense if you do not also believe the weak should fear the strong.

Protip: whatever boogeyman marxist jew feminist egalitarianism Alex Jones is caterwauling about this week isn't the same thing as 'equality' from the context of politics. All this /pol/ shit is an inversion of the politics from the self-identity from the fringes of what you (sweepingly) call 'the Left'.

anarchism is the only just ideology

>that each person should be able to develop their interests and skills as widely and thoroughly as possible, and free from illegitimate coercion.

Which is something anyone who lives in the West right now can do without a problem.

tell that to the single mom without a car working at papa johns living off of food stamps, and burning every paycheck on car payments for the beater that broke down on her and rent that goes up every year

Not everyone who lives in the West is American white trash.

fair enough. I guess America is just a shithole compared to the rest of the West. A revolution will happen here if the media ever stops dividing us

>anyone who lives in the West right now can do
>except burgers

Well, the point I was trying to make is that the West and it's offshoots like Japan are comparatively better than any other society on the planet, whatever kind of anarchist criticism Chomsky might have.

There's a reason the refugees from the Syrian Civil War want to go to Sweden, Germany and Norway, and not their neighbor Saudi-Arabia.

>j-j-just work a little harder american!

>there is a reason people want to move from a war torn country to a liberal society rather than from a war torn country to an authoritarian one

really makes you think

as far as America's class problems go, we are on the same page. i was pointing out that your original post was hypocritical, and pretty dumb considering the Ameri-centrism of this website

How is Japan good? Japan is in the shitter right now. People are literally killing themselves over the amount of work they are doing for western capitalism and their economy is stagnating. Japan is one of the least free "liberal" countries in the world

Well it does make you think when a guy has spent his entire career shitting on the society that even Muslims who consider the society degenerate and non-believing want to flee there.

>There's a reason the refugees from the Syrian Civil War want to go to Sweden, Germany and Norway, and not their neighbor Saudi-Arabia.
because it's a remote possibility? Not really sure what you're getting at, unless it's just /pol/, in which case yeah ok, sure

want to flee to*

>even Muslims who consider the society degenerate and non-believing want to flee there.
i take it you don't read much

>i take it you don't read much

not an argument

...

I'm not a /pol/tard at all, and I don't get why you retards bring it up.

k,

if you have anything else to contribute come back

I did contribute right here, but everyone is autistically screeching because they think just mentioning refugees must mean I hate them.

>everyone
how would you know that we're all anonymous

The point you tried to make is worthless, because obviously Syrians would choose to live in a planned economy, liberal representative democracy. that doesn't mean abolishing the state wouldn't eliminate some of the evils that come with a liberal democracy

Because your ready acceptance of any rhetorical flourish that lets you simultaneously paint refugees as 'the other' and yourself as the noble 'we' belies your true views on them

yeah i know but you didn't contribute to my contribution here
you just said 'no I'm not /pol/'

go back to your safe space. This board is about literature.

>Because your ready acceptance of any rhetorical flourish that lets you simultaneously paint refugees as 'the other' and yourself as the noble 'we' belies your true views on them

But that's not true. It was an admonition that even Chomsky has to accept the positive value of a free and open liberal democracy even though it's not an federative anarchist utopia, but he doesn't do that.

He's literally playing the archetype of the adversary, and can't say a positive thing to save his life.

white biddies with big tiddies and pink nippies?

That's not true. He has openly stated that he supports a liberal democracy where it solves serious existential issues and is a democratizing force. It just almost never does

we're not talking about chomsky though

Go outside, Slavoj

>he says he supports if X
>But it never does X
>There for it's as bad as Saudi-Arabia

This is why anarchists literally aren't taken seriously by anyone. They are so blinded by ideology they don't even understand nuance.

what the fuck are you talking about guy, I never said anything like that and no anarchist is seriously arguing that a liberal democracy is as bad as saudi arabia

>There for it's as bad as Saudi-Arabia
Please post a citation to the work and passage of Chomsky that you think says anything to this effect.

>and no anarchist is seriously arguing that a liberal democracy is as bad as saudi arabia

So why are people like Chomsky only criticizing their own society and see the enemies of liberal democracy as freedom fighters?

>So why are people like Chomsky only criticizing their own society
He's not. Also, please specify who these numerous 'people' you're referring to are

>Also, please specify who these numerous 'people' you're referring to are

youtube.com/watch?v=Pi_vX0tknJM

...

Not an argument.

Also, Chomsky is doing exactly what I've said. He's never said or written a positive word about the West his entire life.

>Not an argument.
That only works on /pol/.

>Also, Chomsky is doing exactly what I've said. He's never said or written a positive word about the West his entire life.
probably because he believes that 'the West' hasn't been doing anything worth writing positively about during his lifetime.

>probably because he believes that 'the West' hasn't been doing anything worth writing positively about during his lifetime.

And that's funny considering he's a professor of linguistics at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and is himself a part of the 1%.

The only reason he could've ever got to that position is if the West was the way it is.

But nevermind that. Lets just tear it all down.

>Also, Chomsky is doing exactly what I've said.
No, he's not. you're consistently being bounced around between whatever poor lummoxes are arguing with you, you're not convincing anybody.

>The only reason he could've ever got to that position is if the West was the way it is.
You mean the type of society that accepts refugees from regions of social turmoil?

>and is himself a part of the 1%.
>mfw neo-fascists adopt Occupy slogans

>The only reason he could've ever got to that position is if the West was the way it is.
what the fuck does that have do with his criticisms of the west

>You mean the type of society that accepts refugees from regions of social turmoil?

Exactly. The kind of society despite all it's faults is better than the shitholes Muslims are fleeing from.

That honestly just looks like Penguin is trying to rip people off lmao

>Anarchism

In all seriousness, though, Chomsky is a better linguist than he is an economist. Modern economics is based on empirical data, unlike Chomsky's work. The book may be interesting and it will certainly be well-written but it's unlikely it will reflect reality.

not true, read his answer to the last question of this interview: alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians

he actually admits quite often that the West HAS made a lot of progress. that progress is a result of criticism and resistance, which is why he continues to resist and criticise.

watch

Ben Bernanke is more of a profiteer than an economist, really.

Same with Greenspan.

Janet Yellen took far too long for the interest rate hike as well, so probably she is also a profiteer.

>States can be effectively checked by voters:

JohnJonahLuaghing.avi The State has grown corpulent and despotic precisely of democracy. Democracy does not check The State; democracy grows and empowers The State.

>Mommy, what's an election?

The incentive under democracy is a larger more avaricious state. How is that remotely controversial?

>Yes there are the designers and engineers and scientists too, also working for wage selling the sweat of their work rather than working for their own pleasure

And machinery and 'means of production' are provided by capital. Labor and capital are factors of production justly compensated in a free market.

>They would of course be part of the workers co-operative

Nothing is stoping worker co-operatives under anarcho-capitalism.

>I work in the food industry.
The only thing keeping the managers and bosses in check is oh&s and safe food handling regulations.

>As usual the economic school theories that sound great (but incidentally add up to benefiting established wealth and power) fails when it meets the real world (except for the incidental benefit part)

I am not disputing that. Just be aware that such injunctions prelude deontological anarchism.

Exactly: nothing is stoping voluntary socialism.

Good; single mothers are human garbage.

>Modern economics is based on empirical data

Which is why it's bullshit.

Except 'voluntary socialism' being a contradiction in terms

I volunteer.

What now, hmm? smartass

nice opinion there m8 did sam hyde tell you to think that way?

why does every discussion of radical leftists get derailed by /pol/lacks who have actually no working knowledge of the world

Absolute liberty is of course impossible.

Maximum liberty is possible, but only for one man. And that man will certainly not be beholden to capitalism. And that man is you.