| |
  |
||||||||||
Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul Supporters: Common ground can be explored
Submitted by fluffhead on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 15:26
I like Chomsky's diagnosis most of the time, the problem is often with his solutions. Kucinich has proven that the left at times can be a trustworthy companion in the fight against unnecessary wars and that is where I agree with Chomsky here. » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Aliens...Democracy... "things we've all agreed upon"...
Noam is living in his dreamworld and has no concept of what we as a Nation REALLY ARE. Contrary to what government schools have been teaching for generations WE are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic. Aliens around April 15th! I am speechless. Noam the shill is showing his true colors once again. He is a socialist pig and his viewpoints are unAmerican. Shame, shame Mr. Chomsky. Why don't you call up your buddy Bernie Sanders, pack up your respective families, and the "collective" bunch of you can live out the rest of your lives in South America.
I think he knows
I think he knows we're not a democracy and he and others here know that was never the intention of the founders...save jefferson maybe...Of course the founders never intended for joes like you and me to vote so this idea of what the founders intended can cut both ways...Just one point though...whats with you guys screaming for people to leave the country...thats so beneath this forum..We shouldn't try and exile people we disagree with..I know you're not calling for the government to kick him or others out but its a little too reminiscent of a totalitarian state.
I thought Chomsky..
...was supposed to be brilliant?
How come an ignoramus like me can see organized power is a threat to the safety and security of human beings, but a learned scholar like Chomsky doesn't?
I didn't realize he made obscene amounts of money sucking off the government teat, like all the other purveyors of collectivization.
(Then again, I didn't care enough to look!)
I really wish this thread
I really wish this thread would go away. Chomsky is a rambling, useless, academic. Watch the end when the kid cuts the interview, Chomsky smiles proudly like as to say, "See how clever I am!"
Chomsky is NO friend of
Chomsky is NO friend of liberty. I hope everyone can see that. He does not believe in private property rights. He believes in bigger, more socialized government. He believes that individuals only have rights in the collective. He's willing to use force to gain power over individuals & corporations.
He's just another shade of Tyranny.
www.twatm.com
libertarian socialism ??!
How on earth could socialism not undermine our liberties ?
There just labels
Its like conservatism...it has a different meaning in Europe than it does in America...It also meant something else a 100 years ago in America...Labels change all the time...Libertarian socialism is an old European term...Its basically the same as Anarchism....Libertarian as in the opposite of any authoritarian society and socialism because all traditional Anarchists are socialists.... "How on earth could socialism not undermine our liberties ?" IDK that all depends on a persons definition of liberty..I guess it comes down to whether or not you view property rights as natural and essential to liberty...If you do than socialism is incompatible with liberty.If not than the term makes perfect sense..like I said its just a label..could mean something completely different ten years from now.
You Said:
You Said:
That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Anarchy is nothing close to socialism. Just look at the definitions.
Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Anarchism:
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
www.twatm.com
Ignoramous
Its not nonsense...its a historical fact. You're either confused or ignorant of 150 years of anarchists thought...go and read Bakunin, Kropotkin emma Goldman etc...ALL SOCIALISTS...Don't bother handing me some half ass online dictionary definition of a complex political and philosophic theory... "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups" Thats like claiming ron paul republicans or libertarians only hate taxes..its half true....Find ten anarchists and at least 9 of them will agree on two constant and equally threatening enemies..Capitalism and the Government...Socialism is not the same as state-socialism...Yes there are market anarchists whom I enjoy reading...I consider men like rothbard and hoppe to be intellectual heavyweights. However, they are no the norm...Traditional Anarchy implies a form or system of stateless socialism. A society based on need and equality..Whether thats a just and free society is a different debate...But you need to brush up on your reading before you make silly remarks about Anarchism again
I find it interesting that
I find it interesting that you don't recognize the pure definition of Anarchism is the antithesis of Socialism. Have you thought that maybe some of these "Socialist/Anarchists" have hijacked and distorted the true meaning of Anarchism. A definition is a definition. Socialism can't exist without a form government. Anarchism is the absence of government.
So, by definition, either these "Socialist/Anarchists" are deluded and confused, or they have used the anti-establishment populous to further their cause. Just because people hang their hat on a certain ideology, without understanding the underlying is their fatal mistake.
Either way, if you follow your thought process through to its logical conclusion, if these socialist/anarchists want to eliminate the "government", then how do they achieve socialism? How do they force people into equitable distribution of goods & services? The answer is, they can't without a form of government imprisoning, taxing and regulating the populous into submission. Destroying Capitalism and destroying the motive behind people's production and entrepreneurship will always fail.
I know many Anarchists and none of them think capitalism is a problem. None of them. Now, I do know a Chomskyite, pseudo libertarian/socialist/anarchist and he thinks capitalism is horrible, but he believes that government is the only way to regulate & fix it. He wants equitable distribution of goods and services and is willing to use lethal force and imprisonment to achieve the goal of his skewed version of a libertarian/socialist/anarchist society.
The bottom line is the definition of Anarchy has been bastardized for many years. It's a very simple explanation and doesn't require a lot of mind bending to get your arms around it.
Don't be so pompous, you'll get a better discussion from your fellow heavyweights. This is a seemingly complicated debate, but sometimes the easiest answer is the best & most logical one.
www.twatm.com
I disagree
again anybody can use the term and I never said market anarchist can't use it, but the history of writings favor my argument. Its not my place to define it for you, take it for what it means to you, but its commonly understood by people who read or study the history of anarchism to embody stateless socialism. I think your confused about what I mean when I speak of socialism vs capitalism. its a very simple line that people should draw..WHO SHOULD OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION??? workers or capitalists/bosses. (BTW the caps are for emphasis, not to be a dick about it or anything lol) Its not about the state...thats a separate issue. Look here in America people like to use the term Libertarian. Flaming statists like neil boortz...Larry elder is now using the term..Hell bill kristol could come out tomorrow and use the term and I'm not in a position to say he can't. but I would be in a position to say his ideas are not in line with the mainstream libertarian principles as agreed on by most political scientists or historians or people even.
"how do they achieve socialism? How do they force people into equitable distribution of goods & services? The answer is, they can't without a form of government imprisoning, taxing and regulating the populous into submission"......Its all about workers control of means of production. The benefits of cooperation and mutual aid would likely reign supreme..How does a family or a church survive without the profit motive within the system.I like to think most people would extend a helping hand if they thought the same would come their way. If tomorrow a majority, lets say 80 percent of the workers around the world refused to work for a boss and decided to only work if they controlled the means of production than they system that we know today would disappear. Capitalists would be left with the choice of initiating force, an act of aggression that you claim to despise or giving in to the inevitable social change or revolution. If workers controlled the means of production and went on to build and promote other forms of democratic institutions, than the stae as we know it would disappear or lose its usefulness, since the protection of private property is no longer needed.
"Destroying Capitalism and destroying the motive behind people's production and entrepreneurship will always fail." Again I would disagree only because the productivity in Anarchist communities in Spain rose by unprecedented levels when workers took control of production. heres wikipidedia "Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%.[2] The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy"
now if you want to work for a boss fine, but if people producing goods no longer want to work for you and they are the only ones around to work, would you initiate force to make them work or would you give them your land and factory and tools to produce collectively?
It comes down to property rights..are they natural or are they illegitimate structures of authority. thats the question people have to answer, not me or you. As far as your friend wanting to use the government to achieve anarchist principles...well hes a Marxist and thats the difference between an anarchist and a Marxist.Marx and Bakunin were at each others throats over this very issue. Your typical anarchist wants nothing to do with the state. he doesn't want to expand its powers to destroy government. He wants peaceful resistance to all forms of tyranny
So you are saying that
Gustave de Molinari,Lysander Spooner, Roderick Long, and Stephen Kinsella are all socialists....
Wow, did they ever have me fooled.
These guys are far from socialists.
No
No I'm saying the the vast majority of self-identified Anarchist are socialist...The last two names write for lewrockwell.com...If you want I'll find more modern names and we can go back and forth. Spooner, like Murray and Hoppe, is not the norm in this regard...again doesn't mean hes wrong but its like how mike gravel started calling himself a libertarian..most libertarians balked at it because his record and train of thought was so far off from mainstream libertarian thought. I'm not bashing any of these men, but to claim Anarchy and socialism are incompatible is rubbish...You might love or despise that form of Anarchy, but the bulk of Anarchist writings propose the destruction of the state and capitalism and instead advocate democratic socialism.
How do you estimate that
How do you estimate that socialism can exist without government to force equitable distribution of goods and services? And how does anarchism play into this use of force on others?
www.twatm.com
...
""How do you estimate that socialism can exist without government to force equitable distribution of goods and services?"" Well I would try and use historical examples as a guide to figure out how it could or would work...The most famous example is that of the Spanish anarchists...They were able to establish a free and equal socialist society..Again people can think what they want of the societies virtues, but it was fairly successful. It was based on workers control of the means of production and democratic institutions. Issues effecting their community were voted on by the community while issues within the workplace I believe were decided by some form of workers councils, but don't quote me on that." And how does anarchism play into this use of force on others?" Simple, do you want to work for a boss under a system of hierarchy or do you want to work with each other...Theres no real compromise of anarchist principles, assuming we're talking about anarchy without private property, private management and "wage" slavery...Again, socialism can and has existed without the state, just as capitalism has existed without the state. Both examples had to be flawed in some sense because they didn't last very long in comparison to state run societies. If workers want to work for a boss or view private property as legitimate, than fine..if not than they can socialize the workplace so there aren't any bosses. To establish private property force had to be used at some point..to establish socialized property, force had and would likely have to used again.
Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky was once one of the most articulate and well-informed critics--unfortunately with his full complement of socialist prejudices--of American State imperialism and contempt for civil liberties working in our society. Some of his works, e.g. American Power and the New Mandarins, written I believe, in 1965, can still be read profitably today.
He was one of the first to see--and loudly discuss--the complicity of the Corporate media in many government coverups and civil liberties or foreign policy outrages and crimes committed by our overlords in Washington DC--District of Criminals.
Like many such people, however, Chomsky has seen better days. He has bitterly criticized Murray Rothbard and similar antiwar libertarians because we don't share his badly mistaken, even bizarre opinions about socialism and communitarian economics.
He supported, at first Hillary Clinton, and later Obama, when he (of all people) should have known better. This was certainly foolish and misguided of him when there were (even aside from Ron Paul) two very good Democrats for one-time radicals like him to endorse--Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.
Both candidates were seriously flawed, for the same reasons, but they shared our foreign policy and civil liberties concerns and had vastly more in common with us, and with him as he used to be, then the revolting people that he ended with!
Noam Chomsky--like his socialist prejudices--have seen better days. Support (if and when) from him, and aging new leftists like him, should be accepted, but with the necessary caveats.
The same is true, of course, perhaps from the opposite direction, of support or endorsements from e.g. Glenn Beck.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Could someone give Chomsky and that dopey kid a call on the
clue phone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Idiots! Both of them. First that stupid little kid calls Ron Paul supporters "ultra-right" wing. How stunningly ignorant. And that Chomsky dope--that guy that so many think (those who've even heard of the guy!) is just living genius is so fundamentally un-American in his viewpoint, it defies description.
I'm getting so damned tired of throwing sand bags against this tide of blazingly ignorant anti-Americanism--and I mean anti-Americanism in the sense that the average "citizen" has no idea that his or her view of government flies in the face of fundamental, extant American political philosophy. And unfortunately, we're all paying the price for it.
Gotta love "democracy", huh? Trickle up suffering.
Chomsky explicitly endorsed Obama on the BBC World Service.
In fact, he scores maximum douche-bag points for FIRST telling us that both candidates are controlled by the same people and THEN endorsing Obama.
He has gone on record as stating that Murray Rothbard's brand of anarchism is "hate-filled". Not "impractical" or "unrealistic" mind you, but "hate-filled".
Of course, Chomsky believes that Anarchy = Socialism. He wants the welfare without the coercion. *huge eye roll*
His work on language and grammar was groundbreaking. Its a shame that he sucks so badly at economics and political science.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
The more I think about it..
the more I'm convinced Market anarchy is an oxymoran....I think I've come to accept the idea that Anarchy does equal socialism....In other words I don't think Capitalism and Anarchy are compatible...Doesn't mean that Rothbards vision isn't possible, just means you can't really call it anarchy, at least if we are to accept the traditional definition and philisophical backround of anarchism
Personally, I'm not an anarchist.
I loved Rothbard's "Mystery of Banking", but disagreed with most of "The Ethics of Liberty".
I think its funny that half of all anarchists think that: "no state = socialism" and the other half think that: "no state = capitalism".
Of course, there are no historical precedents at all. The "no state" situation has never happened.
"Fascism should more properly be called corpoharatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
noam im sorry but
you and that kid both need a haircut.
Plus your writing, I find, is crap.
The kid looks kind of like a
The kid looks kind of like a young Howard Stern
lol
why is everybody picking on this kids hair...he's a college activist, its almost required that he grow his hair out for the first three years...didn't you learn anything in college??? lol...Oh and I'm surprised theres so much hate towards chomsky, maybe I'm just becoming an Anarchist.
Another reason to stay out of universities
And if you're surprised, your ill-informed....
"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy
"The body is but a vessel for the soul,
A puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny.
And lo, the body is not eternal,
For it must feed on the flesh of others,
Lest it return to the dust whence it came.
Therefore the soul deceives and despises."
ummm never mind
ummm never mind
www.retakecongress.com
www.rtrradio.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
What an all-time idiot!!!
What an all-time idiot!!! "Is there any way to reach out to RP libertarians (and move them to the left)? Yes, dum dum, how about posting your position on this site and asking for feedback or friendly discussion? Instead you go to your demagogue for answers about us?? He, judging by his misguided answers, knows nothing about us or our positions. Next time talk directly to us.
Chomsky's low regard for Hon. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul
“You have to ask ‘What makes them Ron Paul libertarians?’ I don’t happen to think that it makes a lot of sense (to be Ron Paul libertarians).”
"They're framed within fixed doctrines but these doctrines are not created in stone. They can be undermined."
Ron Paul supporters are: “Under the feeling, for example, that the government is our enemy . . . That has been induced by propaganda …”
Income Tax: “The way that (Ron Paul supporters) are going to look at it, and the way that they’ve been trained to look at it, is that there is some alien force, like maybe from Mars, which is stealing our hard earned money from us.”
Income Tax: “But if you had a democratic society (by the very definition of it, all would favor income taxes). . .But that idea is even more frightening than Social Security (to Ron Paul supporters). It means that we would have a functioning democracy (which frightens Ron Paul supporters). ”
Chomski oozes contempt for supporters of Ron Paul. Laced with insult every other sentence, without hesitation, he ‘knows’ the inner workings of the minds of Ron Paul supporters.
Chomsky's call to undermine fixed doctrines isn't common ground.
Chomsky at 2min 50 sec, "They're framed within fixed doctrines but these doctrines are not created in stone. They can be undermined."
Yes, Mr. Chomsky, our views are framed by the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution but we will fight your efforts to undermine them.
I don't think
he was calling to undermine the Constitution, simply stating that the doctrines we live by have obviously not been cemented into stone by all the overwhelming evidence of politicians undermining the Constitution. Our efforts he is saying are in vain because our system doesn't work without all of the constitution in place and that regardless it will always be undermined.
http://asilenceproduction.com
http://rightvswrong.wordpress.com
dustin@asilenceproduction.com
http://twitter.com/doctor_jones
http://youtube.com/silencemagazine
Would love to see..
a debate/discussion on social/economic policy between Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky.
Two of the greatest minds coming from similar perspectives as in the power should be with the people but yet opposing views of how that power is rendered. I think it would be enlightening for us all.
http://asilenceproduction.com
http://rightvswrong.wordpress.com
dustin@asilenceproduction.com
http://twitter.com/doctor_jones
http://youtube.com/silencemagazine