The Ideas of Chomsky-BBC interview

A very early and also very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky regarding his Linguistic work published at the time.
The last part contains a discussion of his political views regarding the Vietnam war and Libertarian Socialism.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Noam
• Chomsky
• Linguistics
• Generative
• Grammar
• Libertarian
• Socialism

[idiotkrati]

does he have a facial palsy?

[astroboomboy]

@uselessname1000 When Chomsky says learned he means learning as in learning to play an instrument or to do arithmetic. Language is not learned in that manner, as it is something that one acquire without seemingly any effort. Modern neuropsychology and linguistics has shown this idea to correspond quite accurately to reality. Reality is often at odds with our perceptions. If you want a more "dumbed" down version of his ideas you can read the books of Stephen Pinker.

[uselessname1000]

language isn't learned? sure thats absolute nonsense .

[KrugmanTheKing]

@dick391

It's too much left in the hands of too few: it has to end.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@dick391

Want it seeks to avoid is exactly what you fear: placing too much power in the hands of too few -- the whole point is about doing that economically and politically. That's why wealth in excess has to be brought down, why we have to split the gains and the influence... because as we speak, it already happens.

Elites devise politics in their own interests: they own the corporations, finance campaigns, own the medias and supply the participants who are elected.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@dick391

And, no, it's not a fallacy. It's perfectly consequent: if we can't all get to decide everything, democracy is the solution. But the point in de-centralizing it is to make people participate in it more directly.

You have to make power accountable if you want to avoid being the victim of an arbitrary treatment... that's as simple as that. And it's not a society without rules or without political structures -- it's without States as we know them.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@dick391

By my definition of freedom, democratic control of the workplaces isn't slavery... because the authority is accountable to you as much as you are accountable to them. It responds exactly to the manner in which Humboldt and Tocqueville argued: men are no better alone than directed and must thus associate, but to associate freely means being place on an equal ground...

I actually experience no dissonance whatsoever: it's consistent, but you don't see it.

[dick391]

@KrugmanTheKing There's no reason to believe that anarchy would overturn authoritarian power structures. In fact, it would just enforce them more. For the rich and powerful would be able to kill and steal without facing legal repercussions from a democratically-elected government. As a little guy, that's what scares me the most about anarchy. In fact, odds are they would consolidate control over the means of production even more. They have more resources, more power.

[dick391]

@KrugmanTheKing The fallacy here is that no one can totally be their own master, as you define it. I cannot have and do whatever I want. This is a reality of life. Where you err is in believing that an anarchist society provides you with more freedom than one with government-supported rights.

It's okay man, I get the sense your having a cognitive dissonance moment. If I were you, I would try to really, honestly look at your beliefs and try to square them with reality.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@dick391

But don't call that freedom because it's not. A structure wherein orders are received from above and are handed to next level bellow until it reaches those who execute the gesture is an authoritarian structure.

Don't sell that as if it was freedom: it's power in the hands of few and few who aren't accountable to the workers. That's against freedom. You can be against it, suppose anything is impossible, but don't disguise it.