Thoughts about Noam Chomsky?

[bishal]

I think he is basically anarcho-communism (force of people in policiea) and basicaly thinks the capitalist would take over the power vaccum in free society. In simple term he thinks no government leads to control anyway. What you guys think?

[Mister Mister]

   I can't really figure where he stands on things.  Unlike most liberal intellectuals, he recognizes that the disparity of wealth is a function of gov.t policies which give certain interests advantages, rather than the failing of the free market.  In one video (see if I can find it) he sort of claims.  He will sometimes call himself a libertarian anarchist, a libertarian socialist, anarcho-syndicalist, a conservative, and also champions democracy.  It seems to me these ideas are contradictory, but he avoids ever giving clear definitions of what these things mean so it's hard to say.  He is good at identifying in great detail many of the problems, especially with foreign policy, and shattering illusions that many left wing people have, like that Obama is different from Bush.  As far as solutions, or philosophical principles, he seems to be mired in the same academic vagueness that plagues the political conversation in general.

[Moriartis]

Yeah I will second what RoseCodex says.

I was a lefty big time and it was the works of Noam Chomsky that helped my understand how the system actually works. He pokes millions of holes into the State and reveals a lot of their crimes. He's like an encyclopedia of knowledge of American History and very clearly and bodly advocates Anarchism(although his definition of it is quite a bit different). I've watched several of his debates and he just eviscerates Statists with knowledge and facts that his opponents have no way of combating, it's quite impressive.

As far as what he advocates for in place of our current slavery, I have no idea. He's stated multiple times that we aren't even remotely close to Capitalism, so he doesn't seem to have any irrational hatred for it like most left-wingers. He even states that those in power would never allow Capitalism to exist. He does seem to advocate for some form of Socialism and he very much sees things through the Marxist lens of "the workers" versus "the ruling class". I think he's very useful in getting lefties to abandon the damnable Democratic Party, which will get them to look for alternatives, which could lead to Ron Paul, but more likely to Ralph Nader/Jill Stein, etc. He is in a lot of ways an ally(I wouldn't be here were it not for his work) but not entirely.

[NiggilousOnline]

 

A great quote from Noam Chomsky! 

 

“[The Libertarian ideology] may sound nice on the surface, but if you think it through, it’s just a call for corporate tyranny. Takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny. It’s a step towards the worst- But it’s all academic, ‘cause the business world would never permit it to happen, since it would destroy the economy. I mean, they can’t live without a powerful nanny state, and they know it.”

No.... wait... ಠ_ಠ

[The Libertarian ideology] may sound nice

I mean, they can’t live without a powerful nanny state, and they know it.

Uhh... ಠ_ಠ

libertarian ideology

can't live without a powerful nanny state

ಠ_ಠ

libertarian

powerful nanny state

ಠ_ಠ

...

WHAT!?

[Moriartis]

Yeah, excellent quote. Noam Chomsky has always kind of confused me, because he's such a powerful voice on anarchism and pointing out the corruption of state power, but then doesn't seem to follow through with the philosophy and still buys into collectivist, centralized power bullshit. It's really puzzling.

[LovePrevails]

 

 

 

A great quote from Noam Chomsky! 

 

“[The Libertarian ideology] may sound nice on the surface, but if you think it through, it’s just a call for corporate tyranny. Takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny. It’s a step towards the worst- But it’s all academic, ‘cause the business world would never permit it to happen, since it would destroy the economy. I mean, they can’t live without a powerful nanny state, and they know it.”

No.... wait... ಠ_ಠ

[The Libertarian ideology] may sound nice

I mean, they can’t live without a powerful nanny state, and they know it.

Uhh... ಠ_ಠ

libertarian ideology

can't live without a powerful nanny state

ಠ_ಠ

libertarian

powerful nanny state

ಠ_ಠ

...

WHAT!?

 

 

he means socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

[bishal]

Simply, he works with feelings more than facts and oo oo if name of poor comes in discussion I, Mr: Noam Chomsky, am dead socialist. 

[Rick Horton]

 

Simply, he works with feelings more than facts and oo oo if name of poor comes in discussion I, Mr: Noam Chomsky, am dead socialist. 

 

I disagree. I think that instead of proposing a fix, he is recognizing that there isn't a fix. He recognizes the failings of Capitalism somehow leading to freedom. Capitalism is still going to be a State.

 

[Rick Horton]

I admire that about him. He's intellectually thourough even if it means he cannot answer the question about what to do. I mean, that is a whole other story, and as a philosopher I've come to the closest possible remedies in my life through constant studies, but as far as a global or societal fix I'm not even close, and Anarchy doesn't exist, so I try to work within whatever system the people that rule over me have so that I can maximize my welfare and minimize their abuse. It's a very somber reality, but apart from paying the most attention to how to keep my family and friends whom are most valuable to me happy there doesn't appear to be a widespread answer at all. Not one that after centuries of debate has surfaced. The beginnings of the United States was an amazing experiment from which everybody can learn lessons about freedom, capitalism, fascism, and everything else that it tried to either promote or supress. It set up a system that in theory would minimize the States effect on individuals within a very large populous. But we see that no matter what the rules and regulations demand it takes a very short period of time for the natural state of human competition and authoritarian traits to just do what they do regardless of whatever system is "proclaimed" to exist. The longer a structure rules over an area the more corrupt it will get, and that is the nature of humanity. It just doesn't matter in the long run what sounds nice. So revolutions occur, people demand new laws, tyrrants are eventually overthrown and replaced with the next group of rulers that either start out corrupt or are on their way to corruption down the road. 

    This cycle is so natural to humanity that it seems to me to be the very cleansing agent of our species. At least we do revolt after periods of tyrrany and start over, BUT it always reverts. It's a cycle that has never been broken. EVER. So, he doesn't have the answer, but he has the truth. What would you rather have? A false answer, or the truth, no matter how much it sucks?  

    So from here we diligently search for methods that will minimize terror, and prolong the inevitable corruption, which will undoubtably happen at some point in the future. The best we can hope for is a long run and a few generations of relatively happy members of a relatively predictable and somewhat easy to manuever in, State.  Nothing lives forever, and that seems to be a true reflection of all States. They die off when they get too fat, and from the inside they become too sick to survive.  

   My argument is that there is no permanent answer to be examined at this point. Maybe never. But we do recognize that we live amongst others, and nobody will always agree. Disputes ARE inevitable. Violence is inevitable. Rulers are inevitable (as there are always rulers at every given moment, and never a vacuum)  As a collective people do try and minimize pain as much as possible so that our own most valued people that are in "our own" lives are happy. This leads to both success, and failure in a world in which by the law of evolution there is never a moment (ever, ever, ever, not in a second, minute, day, week, month, year, decade, century,) where competition seizes and equality manifests. 

[endostate]

 

Capitalism is still going to be a State.

 

Capitalism is a diverse free market of providers funded by voluntary exchange maintained by being attractive.

A state is a violent monopoly of services funded by theft that maintains itself by obfuscating its immorality with propaganda and caging/killing those who disagree.

Isn't it just the idea that violent theft can be moral and good for a certain group that divides the two?

What are the steps that you see taking place that turns capitalism into a state?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Capitalism is still going to be a State.

 

Capitalism is a diverse free market of providers funded by voluntary exchange maintained by being attractive.

A state is a violent monopoly of services funded by theft that maintains itself by obfuscating its immorality with propaganda and caging/killing those who disagree.

Isn't it just the idea that violent theft can be moral and good for a certain group that divides the two?

What are the steps that you see taking place that turns capitalism into a state?

 

Stef made up his own definition for State. Or actually I think he referred to Government as what you defined. It doesn't matter though because there will never be equality. There will always be people who game the shit out of any system and they become the State, whether from inside of one building or from behind cloaked hiding places of philosophical convergence. The steps are blatant in why Capitalism would turn into a State. The people who win the most, and most often will gain the most leverage. How wouldn't they. Then they will game every other player in the "free" market. 

[Rick Horton]

And again, sorry. I disgard made up definitions that can only be found through a small audience, and not in any dictionary. I use the dictionary definition of things when I argue, OR I use many words to describe an idea that I can't find one word for that is from the common lexicon of my language. I handily throw out Stefans definition of State, and Government as manipulation of words, and not definitions of words. One person doesn't get to override the definition of a word. Thousands don't either. It takes a huge number of consensus before words are defined and entered into dictionaries. I will not accept your definition because it is not the definition. 

[endostate]

 

The steps are blatant in why Capitalism would turn into a State. The people who win the most, and most often will gain the most leverage. How wouldn't they. Then they will game every other player in the "free" market. 

 

Step 1. Create successful hospital/road/bank/ipad/whatever business
Step 2. Profit
Step 3. Use profits to write constitutions, acts and statutes and hire employees to enforce them
Step 4. Convince the population that regulation, counterfitting and theft done by you is moral and good
Step 5. Profit... more?

How does step 4 get done?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

The steps are blatant in why Capitalism would turn into a State. The people who win the most, and most often will gain the most leverage. How wouldn't they. Then they will game every other player in the "free" market. 

 

Step 1. Create successful hospital/road/bank/ipad/whatever business
Step 2. Profit
Step 3. Use profits to write constitutions, acts and statutes and hire employees to enforce them
Step 4. Convince the population that regulation, counterfitting and theft done by you is moral and good
Step 5. Profit... more?

How does step 4 get done?

 

I don't see why you quoted me. You didn't respond to what is quoted. 

[bishal]

So what, we are living in similar state which you think it will be there, which you are wildly guessing even though the trend and the historical facts does not hint that. But state came in existence not by money but by indoctrination. There are very poor states with government. I understand money makes government powerful but Don´t mix economy with Politics as if they are same thing. 

[Rick Horton]

 

So what, we are living in similar state which you think it will be there, which you are wildly guessing even though the trend and the historical facts does not hint that. But state came in existence not by money but by indoctrination. There are very poor states with government. I understand money makes government powerful but Don´t mix economy with Politics as if they are same thing. 

 

They have the same effect. I'd argue that those with more money will always control the politics of an area, and that means they are The State. 

[bishal]

Yeah only if there exists a government a power centre.

[Rick Horton]

 

Yeah only if there exists a government a power centre.

 

You can remove a certain government but you can't remove rulers without new rulers cropping up and taking control. You cannot stop people from being ruled. Some people demand to be ruled. Some people want to rule. There's always going to be those who succeed at ruling others in ANY society. That is what a government does. That is The State. You say centre, but that doesn't advance your argument. It doesn't take a kingdom, temple, House, or area to rule over others. It takes powerful people against weaker, more submissive people. They govern no matter what the lack of area is, by their influence over an area they have affect on. 

[bishal]

Let me try to briefly explain this.

Rulers and Owners are two different thing. Rulers who claim monoply on power and thinksthey have the responsiblity to develop their nation. To do this they rulers must come with free market ideas. When free market ideas are implemented people start to grow in wellness. Some good Entreperneurs do relitavely better and accumulate wealth and in overall economy grows highly. Then the rulers want to regulate commerce (just for the money they can get from business) to justify this they need to use poor's name, national security issues, environment, bulding infrastructures. So for big government, which are inefficient and often unnecessary, cannot have whole money needed to built infrastructures, pay welfare, etc. so thry must loan it from business savings i.e. from rich which you know almost no country will be able to pay back its debt. Then the debt should be paid anyway in coming future. When time to pay comes, government should make deal since state cannot pay it back and cannot just say no i will not pay (then, economic collapse in inevitable. Rich moves out of their country, stops business, total collapse in economy) which governments clearly know so both parties must make a deal which incluses: more or full monopoly to the creditors, leaving some sector totally for private (like money supply) or some countries resources to  be transferred in private hands. This will make the creditors, the Owners of that country. It is due to government who asks for loans from rich peoples in the first place to bribe its citizens with roads and welfare that the private will easily take over.

But when there is no central power to capture, this is when there is free flow of every information without restrictions, whwnever the rich try to take over the prices of their product rises thus any other can compete with them. When they try to take over the cost of their product must increase which opens the path for competetion so either they should reduce the costs or lose market share and lose wealth. Which forces the rich to take care of only what they are best at, serving customers. Just note that out of 100 biggest companies in past i think now there are less then 5 today. So economic power is same with political power. 

Ok lets take the extreme impossible case that economic power try to create political power in absence of State and achieved it. But hey its going to be same as todays Government.

Lets just try to free people totally and if majority of people thinks its bad, the political power can always be back to where it was.

Its a long process of understanding and realizing and i am still in my way Knowing all the healthy nature of Free market it wins government coercion with long shot. So why not give free society a chance. 

 

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Let me try to briefly explain this.

Rulers and Owners are two different thing. Rulers who claim monoply on power and thinksthey have the responsiblity to develop their nation. To do this they rulers must come with free market ideas. When free market ideas are implemented people start to grow in wellness. Some good Entreperneurs do relitavely better and accumulate wealth and in overall economy grows highly. Then the rulers want to regulate commerce (just for the money they can get from business) to justify this they need to use poor's name, national security issues, environment, bulding infrastructures. So for big government, which are inefficient and often unnecessary, cannot have whole money needed to built infrastructures, pay welfare, etc. so thry must loan it from business savings i.e. from rich which you know almost no country will be able to pay back its debt. Then the debt should be paid anyway in coming future. When time to pay comes, government should make deal since state cannot pay it back and cannot just say no i will not pay (then, economic collapse in inevitable. Rich moves out of their country, stops business, total collapse in economy) which governments clearly know so both parties must make a deal which incluses: more or full monopoly to the creditors, leaving some sector totally for private (like money supply) or some countries resources to  be transferred in private hands. This will make the creditors, the Owners of that country. It is due to government who asks for loans from rich peoples in the first place to bribe its citizens with roads and welfare that the private will easily take over.

But when there is no central power to capture, this is when there is free flow of every information without restrictions, whwnever the rich try to take over the prices of their product rises thus any other can compete with them. When they try to take over the cost of their product must increase which opens the path for competetion so either they should reduce the costs or lose market share and lose wealth. Which forces the rich to take care of only what they are best at, serving customers. Just note that out of 100 biggest companies in past i think now there are less then 5 today. So economic power is same with political power. 

Ok lets take the extreme impossible case that economic power try to create political power in absence of State and achieved it. But hey its going to be same as todays Government.

Lets just try to free people totally and if majority of people thinks its bad, the political power can always be back to where it was.

Its a long process of understanding and realizing and i am still in my way Knowing all the healthy nature of Free market it wins government coercion with long shot. So why not give free society a chance. 

 

 

 

 

You are trying to explain something as fact when it has never been shown in existence. You cannot point to a free market in history that didn't form under some kind of government State, whether big or small. So the actions exercised in those transactions are and have always been regulated. Even in the smallest villages there have always been 1 or more rulers that make "legal" judgements. You simply cannot claim to know as fact, something that doesn't exist. Just like believing in God, Anarchy is merely a religious belief so far. It wants to be real, but it hasn't become real. It can't. It goes against nature. 

[bishal]

I am not explaining free market as a fact when you read it carefully as I am examining both options (negative and positive) senarios.  But here I am just putting facts about what hapens when government is incharge and we can tract what happen with relitavely freerer market in past (not totally free but more free then ever). Please read carefully.

For you if i say i am against slavary and i will not compromise against it. This is religious position for you. If i say i cannot compromise my morality this is extreme position for you. 

Future solution is not up to me, a single guy, I am not here to suggest some solution as fact and tell you to believe in me (its just imigination of positive outcome as you imagine negative outcome and i am not claiming u to be religious with not agreeing with me). I am simply rejecting the current affairs and can prove you government is bad indeed immoral. And there is a moral way to solve complex social problem then to just write laws and be a never ending parasite.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

For you if i say i am against slavary and i will not compromise against it. This is religious position for you. If i say i cannot compromise my morality this is extreme position for you. 

 

 

No it isn't. Not on either account. Why did you say that?

[bishal]

Coz you say  "You simply cannot claim to know as fact, something that doesn't exist. Just like believing in God, Anarchy is merely a religious belief so far. It wants to be real, but it hasn't become real. It can't. It goes against nature. "  You try to discredit other ideas by simply saying its religious.

We come to beleive in government by life long indoctrination from religious and political instutution. So when you say its not natural whay don´t you learn yourself if we humans are evolved to be ruled by some humans with same biological, psycological, menatal and physical capacity. When i say i am your ruler your master do you accept that or whats wrong with that?

[Rick Horton]

 

Coz you say  "You simply cannot claim to know as fact, something that doesn't exist. Just like believing in God, Anarchy is merely a religious belief so far. It wants to be real, but it hasn't become real. It can't. It goes against nature. "  You try to discredit other ideas by simply saying its religious.

We come to beleive in government by life long indoctrination from religious and political instutution. So when you say its not natural whay don´t you learn yourself if we humans are evolved to be ruled by some humans with same biological, psycological, menatal and physical capacity. When i say i am your ruler your master do you accept that or whats wrong with that?

 

If you say it I would dismiss it, unless you are infact my ruler. Can you provide evidence that you are my ruler, and that you rule over me? If you can show me that you are my ruler then I will concede. 

[bishal]

Hahahaa.. Yeah right there.. Show me evidence that i am a slave of my president or the president is my master?

[Rick Horton]

 

Hahahaa.. Yeah right there.. Show me evidence that i am a slave of my president or the president is my master?

 

Well, you don't think he is your ruler?

[bishal]

You tell me how he is my master? The burden of proof is unto you. Thats what i want to clear it to you. Someone seems to your my master but comparing anything logically there is no difference. And history of mankind is simple, we reject emperors, kings, totatitairan rulers to relitavely less government. Why not go further, why not evolve!

[bishal]

Why don't you read Stefan's book "Practical Anarchy"? There it is explained, not as a facts but logically about the capitalist idea in more detail.