Chomsky is, or at least was, an Anarchist. If he were trying to distance himself from Anarchism he wouldn't claim to hold Anarcho-Syndicalist beliefs.
Now you're point that Chomsky is a big government Anarchist is close to a criticism levelled against him by other Anarchists, but you take it too far. Chomsky recognises that Anarchist institutions must be formed before the state can be done away with, a short-term tactical judgement and doesn't make him supportive of the state indefinitely.
hahahaha...just like the workers' soviets would be destroyed? Dude. There are necessary institutions that have been proven to be necessary. i.e. cops, can't live with em, can't exist without em. i.e. market regulatory boards, same thing. Radicalism for the sake of radicalism is retarded. Idiots like that are only good for being fringe groups which keep the state from growing too immense.
You say that certain institutions are necessary; I don't disagree. Nowhere do you prove that these necessitate a state or that they should function as they do now. Who's being radical for the sake of being radical?
I'm not sure how the destruction of the Soviets is relevant here.
"You have to protect the cage when its under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage, recognizing that its a cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, theyre going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to themselves." Chomsky
Ok, now I understand the cage, by expanding its floor I take away the moveability and flexibility available to the private tyrannies to move around and suppress others.
Remember, in the metaphor, there is a beast outside the cage, which is private power. If we dismantle the cage, we get eaten. But the cage is also intolerable, so expanding the floor of the cage means we push the state to it's limits, providing us room for organizing and building up alternatives. Then when we finally dismantle it, we can defend against the beast ourselves, or it will be so far away it becomes irrelevant.
how is it that the beast is defeated by expanding the cage? It seems to me you could continually expand the cage until it is the beast that is in the cage and not you.
It is a metaphor expressing a general idea. Any metaphor could be manipulated on specificity but as the floor expands the moveability of the beast becomes more limited generally speaking.
And variablast, we hear the same critique from the uncompromising anti-statists like the an-caps all the time, so it's cool.
Again, if on certain issues we do agree, we can work together on them, and you can call Chomsky a democratic socialist on those issues if you want. When you think we go too far, we can stop cooperating and duke it out if you want haha. But I think we are after the same goals for human beings.
big gov anarchist is totally wrong as you took it out of context, no wonder you dont understand as you dont read the proper meaning. The context was big gov in the short term to help with societal problems of suppression then, when more manageable, big gov will be illegitimate if social conscientiousness rising to a humane level
Wow, varia, I have felt the same way at certain times in my life. We have very little control over the economic infleunes in our lives in the short term and sometimes longer that it drives us crazy.
Noam has actually been addressing your type of sentiment recently; people who are doing everything right, working hard, supporting families etc but not getting the rewards of the american dream. His solution is that we must organize in MASS and force better standards of living
I am not sure if this helps but Noam believes in big gov intervention in the short run vision but he applies getting rid of illegitimate gov in the long run. Gov is illegitimate when its functioning suppresses. He feels gov is needed now more then ever as power and resources are being concentrated in such a small group of "owners of society" such as in corporations. I dont believe Anarchists view the value of gov that way, dualistically.
Chosmky is a self proclaimed anarchist or libertarian socialist so inherently we see government unnecessary we seek to abolish it along whit capitalism
I think you are generally right. State power is awful but it is potentially influenceable by the population, but private concentrations of wealth and power are total tyrannies. So in the short term it may even mean we have to defend part of the state to help people's current conditions, and fight off the encroachment of private power.
It's like the beast and the cage analogy: we should extend the floor of the cage with the goal of dismantling it, but use it to protect ourselves from the beast
Thanks, for the confirmation, it needs to be repeated over and over again has attempts to refute it over and over again under the Propaganda Model of Manufacturing Consent will present the contray over and over again.
Being an accountant is cool, you gotta pay your bills right? I actually wish I had some marketable skills so I wouldn't have to struggle this hard. But I think understanding the institutions that are imposed on you helps to inoculate you from the psychosis, as you put it. It's like a good journalist, Robert Fisk or somebody, who understand the system and can get his stuff through, still surviving.
Thanks Chomskyan, never to late to go back to school, especially today. I knew I was going to have job problems living in such a business run society so I choose accounting and economics because the unemployment rate in accounting is usually very low and I knew I would be changing jobs a lot when I start talking about Noam in businesses and Noam warned me personnally about that so I moved to Paris, really, LOL YOu are right I understand Corporate Psychosis already
well, maybe not you and I personally, since you also seem to have a low opinion of me as well, and anarchists in general. But we can work towards common goals.
I would suggest though just to be human to each other, as many people are trying to be in their exchange with you. But you are on defensive mode all the time and there is some reasons for that. Try to distinguish the assholes from the generally good people that disagree with you.
just to be clear, I tried to state facts and clear up some misunderstandings of the english language. You called me an asshole and "kind of a shit" and told me "fuck you."
Still, I hope you can get something out of these exchanges, though I doubt it.
I think we have common grounds, we should work toward those. How about that single-payer healthcare? and stopping US imperialist wars? We can work on those together, surely?
Hey man, I am really not trying to be the asshole here. But it seems impossible to talk with you. And hey, you said "fuck you" and call me an asshole for stating a fact that ultimately I don't think matters too much about the little dispute with you and the anarchists.
I read through most of the comments and I thought some people were too harsh in their comments towards you. Even my friend Buddhgem, sometimes I feel he can be even more diplomatic. But you really don't make it easy.
You are not an atheist thinker. You are an atheist. I think you are a little delusional.
I didn't say he is or he isn't, I said that he didn't consider himself one. And it doesn't detract from any position he has taken on anarcho-syndicalism.
Read the book Chomsky on Anarchism, it contains mostly introductions he has written for other anarchist works, and interviews he has given on anarchism, this one included. He identifies with a strand of anarchism, but points out that it has a broad range
If you bothered to listen to the interview, the entire interview is him defending his anarcho-syndicalism.
The question you seem to obsess about is just a factual question. He doesn't consider himself an anarchist thinker, he didn't think he had contributed to anarchist theory. He never said he wasn't an anarchist.
Its like there are billions of Christians running around, but how many can we consider "Christian thinkers"?
dude, it's just an elementary recognition of what was said.
An anarchist thinker would be people who've written extensively and contributed to the theories and the vast literature of anarchist thought. An anarchist would be anyone that identified with those ideas, and acted, organized in accordance with anarchist principles.
So I am not an anarchist thinker, I haven't written and contributed new insight on the topic. But I consider myself an anarchist.
Wilhelm von Humboldt's - "On the Limits of State Action"
Just1Cauz 8 months ago
Chomsky is, or at least was, an Anarchist. If he were trying to distance himself from Anarchism he wouldn't claim to hold Anarcho-Syndicalist beliefs.
Now you're point that Chomsky is a big government Anarchist is close to a criticism levelled against him by other Anarchists, but you take it too far. Chomsky recognises that Anarchist institutions must be formed before the state can be done away with, a short-term tactical judgement and doesn't make him supportive of the state indefinitely.
TheHarlequin13 2 years ago
hahahaha...just like the workers' soviets would be destroyed? Dude. There are necessary institutions that have been proven to be necessary. i.e. cops, can't live with em, can't exist without em. i.e. market regulatory boards, same thing. Radicalism for the sake of radicalism is retarded. Idiots like that are only good for being fringe groups which keep the state from growing too immense.
hububub 1 year ago
@hububub
You say that certain institutions are necessary; I don't disagree. Nowhere do you prove that these necessitate a state or that they should function as they do now. Who's being radical for the sake of being radical?
I'm not sure how the destruction of the Soviets is relevant here.
TheHarlequin13 1 year ago
variablah,
Sorry, something just happened in my life that is very upsetting to me and I transferred aggression at you when I should not have.
Marly61 2 years ago
variablast,
You are the dumbest fuck I ever meet on You Tube.
You took it out of context again as I wrote "short term vision" not short term.
Marly61 2 years ago
varisblast,
That should be right not write
Marly61 2 years ago
variablast,
You are actually write, everyone will read what I wrote and quoting I wrote "big gov in the short term vision"
Do you need glasses?
Marly61 2 years ago
"You have to protect the cage when its under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage, recognizing that its a cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, theyre going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to themselves." Chomsky
Chomskyan 2 years ago 3
Chomskyan,
Ok, now I understand the cage, by expanding its floor I take away the moveability and flexibility available to the private tyrannies to move around and suppress others.
Marly61 2 years ago
Remember, in the metaphor, there is a beast outside the cage, which is private power. If we dismantle the cage, we get eaten. But the cage is also intolerable, so expanding the floor of the cage means we push the state to it's limits, providing us room for organizing and building up alternatives. Then when we finally dismantle it, we can defend against the beast ourselves, or it will be so far away it becomes irrelevant.
Chomskyan 2 years ago 7
how is it that the beast is defeated by expanding the cage? It seems to me you could continually expand the cage until it is the beast that is in the cage and not you.
verstwo2 2 years ago
verstwo,
It is a metaphor expressing a general idea. Any metaphor could be manipulated on specificity but as the floor expands the moveability of the beast becomes more limited generally speaking.
Marly61 2 years ago
And variablast, we hear the same critique from the uncompromising anti-statists like the an-caps all the time, so it's cool.
Again, if on certain issues we do agree, we can work together on them, and you can call Chomsky a democratic socialist on those issues if you want. When you think we go too far, we can stop cooperating and duke it out if you want haha. But I think we are after the same goals for human beings.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
variablasted,
big gov anarchist is totally wrong as you took it out of context, no wonder you dont understand as you dont read the proper meaning. The context was big gov in the short term to help with societal problems of suppression then, when more manageable, big gov will be illegitimate if social conscientiousness rising to a humane level
Marly61 2 years ago
variablast,
Wow, varia, I have felt the same way at certain times in my life. We have very little control over the economic infleunes in our lives in the short term and sometimes longer that it drives us crazy.
Noam has actually been addressing your type of sentiment recently; people who are doing everything right, working hard, supporting families etc but not getting the rewards of the american dream. His solution is that we must organize in MASS and force better standards of living
Marly61 2 years ago
variablast,
I am not sure if this helps but Noam believes in big gov intervention in the short run vision but he applies getting rid of illegitimate gov in the long run. Gov is illegitimate when its functioning suppresses. He feels gov is needed now more then ever as power and resources are being concentrated in such a small group of "owners of society" such as in corporations. I dont believe Anarchists view the value of gov that way, dualistically.
Marly61 2 years ago
Chomskyan shots and scores big again!
Marly61 2 years ago
opps, SHOOTS
Marly61 2 years ago
I do miss basketball.... after playing everyday during the summer....
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Chomskyan,
Any ideas on what I posted about what I believe Noam sees as the general use of gov?
Marly61 2 years ago
Chosmky is a self proclaimed anarchist or libertarian socialist so inherently we see government unnecessary we seek to abolish it along whit capitalism
Menace3434 2 years ago
I think you are generally right. State power is awful but it is potentially influenceable by the population, but private concentrations of wealth and power are total tyrannies. So in the short term it may even mean we have to defend part of the state to help people's current conditions, and fight off the encroachment of private power.
It's like the beast and the cage analogy: we should extend the floor of the cage with the goal of dismantling it, but use it to protect ourselves from the beast
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Chomskyan,
Thanks, for the confirmation, it needs to be repeated over and over again has attempts to refute it over and over again under the Propaganda Model of Manufacturing Consent will present the contray over and over again.
Marly61 2 years ago
Chomskyan,
I just started reading "The Corporation" and I am an accountant. I hope being an accountant does not infect with Corporate Psychosis.
Marly61 2 years ago
Cool. The Corporation was great.
Being an accountant is cool, you gotta pay your bills right? I actually wish I had some marketable skills so I wouldn't have to struggle this hard. But I think understanding the institutions that are imposed on you helps to inoculate you from the psychosis, as you put it. It's like a good journalist, Robert Fisk or somebody, who understand the system and can get his stuff through, still surviving.
Good luck with that.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Chomskyan,
Thanks Chomskyan, never to late to go back to school, especially today. I knew I was going to have job problems living in such a business run society so I choose accounting and economics because the unemployment rate in accounting is usually very low and I knew I would be changing jobs a lot when I start talking about Noam in businesses and Noam warned me personnally about that so I moved to Paris, really, LOL YOu are right I understand Corporate Psychosis already
Marly61 2 years ago
well, maybe not you and I personally, since you also seem to have a low opinion of me as well, and anarchists in general. But we can work towards common goals.
I would suggest though just to be human to each other, as many people are trying to be in their exchange with you. But you are on defensive mode all the time and there is some reasons for that. Try to distinguish the assholes from the generally good people that disagree with you.
Take care
Chomskyan 2 years ago 2
gotta love a bit of chommer
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
just to be clear, I tried to state facts and clear up some misunderstandings of the english language. You called me an asshole and "kind of a shit" and told me "fuck you."
Still, I hope you can get something out of these exchanges, though I doubt it.
I think we have common grounds, we should work toward those. How about that single-payer healthcare? and stopping US imperialist wars? We can work on those together, surely?
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Hey man, I am really not trying to be the asshole here. But it seems impossible to talk with you. And hey, you said "fuck you" and call me an asshole for stating a fact that ultimately I don't think matters too much about the little dispute with you and the anarchists.
I read through most of the comments and I thought some people were too harsh in their comments towards you. Even my friend Buddhgem, sometimes I feel he can be even more diplomatic. But you really don't make it easy.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
You are not an atheist thinker. You are an atheist. I think you are a little delusional.
I didn't say he is or he isn't, I said that he didn't consider himself one. And it doesn't detract from any position he has taken on anarcho-syndicalism.
Read the book Chomsky on Anarchism, it contains mostly introductions he has written for other anarchist works, and interviews he has given on anarchism, this one included. He identifies with a strand of anarchism, but points out that it has a broad range
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Again, saying that he himself is not an "anarchist thinker" is not disavowing his anarchism. You seem not to be able to comprehend it.
Do you consider yourself an "atheist thinker?" If you don't, can I say that you are disavowing your atheism?
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Yup, maybe I was talking to a hat rack.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
you are an interesting guy man. haha it is like talking to a wall.
I hope you feel better health-wise.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
If you bothered to listen to the interview, the entire interview is him defending his anarcho-syndicalism.
The question you seem to obsess about is just a factual question. He doesn't consider himself an anarchist thinker, he didn't think he had contributed to anarchist theory. He never said he wasn't an anarchist.
Its like there are billions of Christians running around, but how many can we consider "Christian thinkers"?
Chomskyan 2 years ago
I think this is a question that goes to your english comprehension....
Stop trying to play "gotcha" and just listen a little bit. Or don't. But this is rather silly.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
dude, it's just an elementary recognition of what was said.
An anarchist thinker would be people who've written extensively and contributed to the theories and the vast literature of anarchist thought. An anarchist would be anyone that identified with those ideas, and acted, organized in accordance with anarchist principles.
So I am not an anarchist thinker, I haven't written and contributed new insight on the topic. But I consider myself an anarchist.
Clear now?
Chomskyan 2 years ago
he says he is not an "anarchist thinker." He didn't say he wasn't an anarchist.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
why am I being thumbed down for stating a fact?
Chomskyan 2 years ago
I don't believe in rights but in the form of human autonomy yes it can in some instances though its very existence violates it as well.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago