[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 27 KB, 458x475, chomsky2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571376 No.5571376 [Reply] [Original]

Why is it cool to hate Chomsky?

>> No.5571385

>>5571376
Because he's a communist who pretends to be an anarchist.

>> No.5571416

He's fucking nerdy

>> No.5571421
File: 52 KB, 279x340, 1364272208346.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571421

>tw you source Chomsky

>> No.5571422
File: 173 KB, 561x800, 1412941068320.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571422

>>5571376
I think the real question here OPski is who will take his place when he is gone? the only person coming close is Zizek but they hate each others guts

>> No.5571465

he is mainstream

>> No.5571471

>>5571376
Don't know what is called but it has something to do with a grandiose feeling of self worth. Chomsky is perceived as an intellectual that stands in opposition to the politicial maintstream, so people think they will appear even more intellectual when they criticise his persona, because their criticism is basically just them saying they were better than him and therfor in the right. For the lack of a better word, they are hipsters who confuse sincerity with obscurity and generate self worth from not liking stuff others do.

>> No.5571480

>>5571471

it's called the /lit/ persona m8

>> No.5571494

Because he's a hypocrite.

>> No.5571507

>>5571494
How?

>> No.5571510

>>5571376
prepare thy keks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvgdU3lSG7A

>> No.5571564

>>5571376
Because "muh gommunism" and literally no other reason.

The intellectual weakness of your average 4chan user has a lot to do with it. They readily submit to the 4chan hivemind where everything that isn't reprehensibly racist constitutes "political correctness gone mad". Everyone that's out of a job is a dolebasher, everyone that has brown skin is a terrorist.

>> No.5571625

>>5571510
Zizek brings up some points about Chomsky, but he himself is a blubbering idiot who rejects empirical evidence as reality.

>> No.5571638

He is a retard when it comes to Islamic extremism. He is like 100 years old and still thinks the United States is responsible for that type of terrorism.

>> No.5571693

>>5571638
>implying they're not

>> No.5571713
File: 70 KB, 640x633, 1408746839033.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571713

>>5571625
>zizek is a blubbering idiot
you fucking what mate

>> No.5571720

>>5571638
It's not like the us never has founded any terrorists you know?

>> No.5571731

He's an infantile leftist bourgeois stooge

>> No.5571740

>>5571693
>>5571720
you guys are too hard on them.
i mean they just fund and train fundamentalist paramilitaries in order to further their goals.
i mean how could they know things are gonna turn bad, right?
besides who cared about some dead kurds?
we can always blow up the oil fields if they get too close to them.

>>5571376
it's cool to dislike chomsky cause the media encourages you to be right wing.

>> No.5571751

>>5571638
>they're not
You're the reason Chomsky is relevant.

>> No.5571760

>>5571564
Thishth

>> No.5571765

>>5571731
Fuck off Lenin

>> No.5571780 [DELETED] 
File: 2.40 MB, 213x160, 1397579143650.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571780

>>5571740
>to further their goals
Who's goals goyim?

>> No.5571932

Because once you realize all of his critiques are from the perspective of an anarchist, you realize how shallow they are on that basis.
It's easy to be outraged by the abuse of power by those who have it. Chomsky is outraged, but his solution is to get rid of power structures, which is an unrealistic solution that didn't work any of the other times it was tried.

>> No.5571939

Zek doesn't grasp philosophy of language lime Chomsky does.
Chomsky doesn't grasp psychoanalysis like Zek does.

>> No.5571946

>>5571939
>Zek

>> No.5571965

>>5571932
> but his solution is to get rid of power structures
It is? I've read some of his books, not all of them, and never gotten this vibe. He does say all the time that the people on top of those structures are pathologically corrupt

>> No.5571970

>>5571965
What solutions for that corruption does he offer?

>> No.5571982

>>5571970
removal of pseudo-democracy

>> No.5571989

>>5571982
Replacement with what?

>> No.5571991

>>5571932
>>5571965
>>5571970
no, he advocates for an expansion of the welfare state (which makes him a pariah to many more hardline anarchists) and he generally advocates government programs that will reduce private tyranny while still being strongly opposed to government tyranny.

his anarchism is more of a philosophical position that opposes power structures than a "how quickly can we get to a stateless society" position.

>> No.5572081

>>5571376
>socialist

more?

>> No.5572126

>>5571422
>they hate each others guts
It was the classical continental/analytic stuff, if anything Zizek was way more serious and respectful than Foucault.

>>5571507
(not that anon)
He took money from the pentagon and lives off MIT, which is heavily related to the industrial-military complex. People get irked off that, but they really shouldn't since he clearly was more than ready to get kicked off during his younger years.

>>5571638
Yeah, not as if the states were there since before Saddam.

>>5571932
He's anarcho-syndicalyst, he thinks the only power structure should be democratically controlled.
You can download the presentation "Capitalism Rules" in mp3 and see what he says about it.

>>5571991
This.
Even if he considers himself an anarchist he doesn't search solutions on a long term but things that could be done imitating countries that already exist. I guess it's his way to be continental about something.

>> No.5572195

>>5571376
Because people are intimidated by the fact that he's a good rhetorician, author and political commentator. His arguments for anarchism (more specifically anarcho-syndicalism) sound a bit too "functioning", this upsets most statists.

>> No.5572214

>>5571989
Education will inevitably lead to the people emancipating themselves from slavery under the state, or that's atleast what anarchists (including me) hope.

AFAIK Chomsky doesn't support the revolutionary stuff, because as history has proven to us, it always ends up with a new despot filling the power vacuum.

People need to be educated to realize that they can control their own lives, they don't need a nanny (the state) to guide them.

>> No.5572227

>>5572126
>they really shouldn't since he clearly was more than ready to get kicked off during his younger years.

That's not exactly a solid argument. "He may be a shill, but he says he feels bad about it!"

>> No.5572237

>>5572214

>People need to be educated to realize that they can control their own lives, they don't need a nanny (the state) to guide them.

oh boy...

>> No.5572238

>>5571376

Because there is no UG.

>> No.5572243

He's too preoccupied with supporting causes that undermines the US which is not only arguable in the first place but without checking the legitimacy of said causes. He's a useful idiot without use.

>> No.5572260

>>5572227

It's a solid argument, it's on the basis that his knowledge is only reactionary and not solid. He only argues against it because it was there in the first place. What makes him so sure that he will not become reactionary of his own ideas at the long run? How can he be so sure of it?

>> No.5572287

>>5572237
What seems to be the problem here? Did you get a stroke from the thought of not having a big brother guiding your hand? Faggot.

>> No.5572296

>>5572287

*doffs fancy headwear*

>> No.5572325

>>5572214
>doesnt support the revolutionary stuff
I heard an interview in which he mentions the example of the Paris commune, which was working pretty well untill the state just send the army. There's little way you could actually take territory out of the state by force without ending that way.

>>5572227
He doesn't feel bad at all, maybe that also irks people. He just kept saying whatever he wanted and MIT used him to show how open minded they were, he accepted that since it allowed him to reach a bigger audience even in detriment of his message.

>>5572287
He's questioning if the state educating them doesn't hurt the cause more than it helps. Which is a pretty obvious idea, people should have other ways to educate themselves outside of the school (and internet).

>>5572243
He has said that there are already too much people defending the state for him to go back and correct himself. Under the information he had, he says, his was the correct interpretation.
That was the main problem Zizek had with him, but you can tell Chomsky is absurdly stubborn and you should judge ideas for the personality of the speaker.

>> No.5572333

>mfw everybody assumes Chomsky's linguistics are good just because he's famous

>> No.5572340

>>5572333

They're pretty influential for AI, but his theory of deep structure might be BS.

>> No.5572345

Chomsky is a hack and hypocrite, he's only popular because he's relatively 'safe' unlike leftists like Zizek and Badiou.

>> No.5572350

>>5572340
>his theory of deep structure

You haven't read him have you?

>> No.5572355

>>5572350

No I have a friend who works in comp sci/AI and he says he uses Chomsky's stuff so idk. I admit I'm ignorant.

>> No.5572363

>>5572333
He made the ground work and people worked on top of it, no one is expecting no ones work to be absolute and definite. It's pretty impressive that he had an original take on pretty much anything in the XX century, so obviously analytics will be proud of him.

>> No.5572372

I stopped taking Chomsky seriously when he more or less represented the Christian-Orthodox fascist party of Slobodan Milosevic as the victim in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s and also when he compared the 9/11 attacks to Clinton's missile strike on Sudan.
I honestly don't know how any of you still take him seriously.

>> No.5572373

>>5572363

That's got nothing to do with what I said. I don't really know why you're replying.

>>5572355

It's not your fault, but this is the norm, really. His praise is endlessly repeated by people who haven't studied linguistics for themselves.

>> No.5572379

>>5572340
>They're pretty influential for AI
Chomsky had a very strong, negative influence on AI. PDP all day erry day, fuck symbols, Connectionists in da house, pimp or die.

>> No.5572384

>>5572379
>PDP all day erry day, fuck symbols, Connectionists in da house, pimp or die.

My nigga.

>> No.5572387

>>5572373
I was saying that it's pretty obvious that he'll be considerably well known (famous is a bit too much) and respected, even if his work was refuted and corrected. If anything he was closer to his point that Freud.

But if you could explain yourself before running out of interets I would read it.

>> No.5572402

>>5572387

That still has nothing to do with what I posted. I seriously don't know where your reading comprehension is at.

>> No.5572432

>>5571510
I want zizek to analyze these videos

>> No.5572479

>>5571510
"The only convincing love story of our century" -Vanity Fair

>> No.5572569

Reading "Manufacturing Consent" now. Why is he so right? Where should I go from here.

>> No.5572587

>>5572569
>Where should I go from here.

Mencius Moldbug

>> No.5572589

>>5571625
>rejects empirical evidence as reality.
Good, as any person with sense should.

>> No.5572597
File: 111 KB, 500x500, 13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5572597

>>5571740
>cause the media encourages you to be right wing.

>> No.5572601

>>5572597
Yes. It got to the point in which people from the US has their own definition of right and left wing, it's silly.

>> No.5572609

>>5572587
I wish there was a containment board I could tell you to go back to but I know very well nobody on /pol/ could actually finish even a single Moldbug post.

>> No.5572641

>tfw everyone is left but you

>> No.5572795

>>5572587
I really want you NRx faggots to leave the Internet, mostly because I know you wouldn't last a minute in the real world and your collective demise would be good for the left, the right, and everyone else.

>> No.5572814

>>5571376
Nobody hates Chomsky. His fans are atrocious, is all.

>> No.5572822

>>5572814
Why do Americans always add 'is all' to their clauses?

>> No.5572855

>>5572822
Because it isn't a clause without 'is all,' is all.
We're also very insecure about everything we say, think, and do.

>> No.5572859
File: 63 KB, 320x240, wanda.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5572859

One thing I don't get about Chomsky is,

Why the fuck is he relevant politically? From what I can tell all he is, is a competent orator, and has contributed a few linguistic/computer science things, so he's a great linguist, but who cares about his retarded political/philosophical ideology. All of his arguments can be summarized like this

"I won't explain the basis for any of my assumptions because it's been done to death, but here is my standpoint and if you don't agree you're a dirty pleb who doesn't understand linguistics"

>> No.5572867

>>5571376

Khmer Rouge is why

>> No.5572868

>>5572859
>"I wont explain the basis for any of my assumptions because it's been done to death"
He only explains that, that's what he has been doing since the 70's.

>> No.5572870

>>5572855
'His fans are atrocious' is a valid clause.

>> No.5572877

>>5572822
I'm not even american, tho.

>> No.5572880
File: 359 KB, 916x1041, democracy-and-the-intellectuals-iv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5572880

>>5572569
Tell me, then, if there is a vast right-wing conspiracy of corporations and the military-industrial complex manipulating the common people, why the consensus, for the last 200 years, have only shifted leftwards?

>> No.5572883

>>5572877
You just spent too much time talking with them.

>> No.5572894

>>5572880
The consensus about what ? Industrial lobbies are still very powerful, and the Americans still spend an insane amount of money on their military. What Joe McAverage thinks about it doesn't matter as long as he keeps watching TV and voting for politician who, left or right, aren't willing or able to change that.

>> No.5572895

>>5572880
>vast right-wing conspiracy
Come one. This has been dealt with so many times it's even in the movie version of manufacturing consent and in the promotion talks he did. No one thinks there's a conspiracy, it's the natural path the system was built to take.
In terms of international policy the US is as corporatist as it can get. Let more people get registered in your army or as a couple doesn't mean left wing in any other country.

>> No.5572896

>>5572870
Not without 'is all' at the end, is all.

>> No.5572899

>>5571471
>if you don't agree with me you're just a hipster
Ok m8. You sound about as reasonable as Chomsky.

>> No.5572901
File: 218 KB, 2048x1288, CAMBODIA_GENOCIDE_TRIAL_266.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5572901

Chomsky seems pretty cool, but it bugs me how he denied the Cambodian Genocide in the face of all evidence. Like he wanted Asian communism to be different from soviet communism, he refused to accept any examples where it could be worse.

Even when the North Vietnamese (Asian communists he supported) started to do something about the genocide, he accused them of imperialism.

>> No.5572902

>>5572895
>Come on
It's a bad thing starting with a shitty mistake.

>> No.5572905
File: 119 KB, 510x321, straight-hall-occupation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5572905

>>5571932
Chomsky is in the core of the most powerful institution of the Western world, the academia.

Everyone who have some importance go through the academia, and the academia is, since the 1960s, dominated by revolutionary communists. These people are not powerless dissidents, they are part of the ruling class, the First Estate, the high clergy.

And they are very jealous of this power. You will never see Chomsky defending that MIT should be "democratically controlled".

>> No.5572910

>>5571564
That's a pretty dismissive attitude.

>> No.5572911

>>5571740
>the media encourages you to be right wing
It most certainly does not.

>> No.5572924

>>5572868
Every work of his I read starts with a swath of assumptions he does not even pretend to try and justify, mostly along the lines of "we all know America is pure evil, here is all the things I can extrapolate from that."

"The world has not renounced war. Quite the contrary. By now, the world's hegemonic power accords itself the right to wage war at will, under a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" with unstated bounds. International law, treaties, and rules of world order are sternly imposed on others with much self-righteous posturing, but dismissed as irrelevant for the United States—a long- standing practice, driven to new depths by the Reagan and Bush II administrations."

Of course this sounds like heavy shit to a the kid sitting at his Uni co-op making vegan burrito's (lovely addition of Bush II) but he just conveniently ignores that even if you consider WWI and II, we are still in an era where war doesn't end in 40% population extermination

He doesn't try to justify this, he just states what ends up being the crux of his argument as an offhanded fact.

He goes on to criticize rhetoric, when that is literally all he is as a political philosopher.

>> No.5572926

>>5571991
>taxation
>not tyranny

>> No.5572931

>>5572905
Chomsky's email is public and he responds to emails. Why don't you email him and ask about this and then get back to us?

>> No.5572944

>>5572931
I'd really like to see how Chosmky answers people, as far as I can tell it's just a thing he says he does but no one can prove or disprove.

>> No.5572947

>>5572195
>statists
Direct democracy is a state.

Why are you commie fags so retarded?

>> No.5572958

My favourite example of Chomsky's rhetoric is this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_China

>In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western discourse as "the loss of China" – in the US, with bitter recriminations and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The "loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had major policy consequences.

Every phrase is gold. Communist victory in the becomes a declaration of independence. "It is only possible to lose something that one owns" is something that only a psychopath that never had a friend and lost it could say, and of course, it pretty much ignores the entire basis of the expression which is the role of Soviet agents in the American foreign policy because that of course conflicts with his worldview and narrative.

And really, because he was probably a Soviet agent himself.

>> No.5572962

>>5572944
In other /lit/ chomsky threads somebody shared some emails.

He probably has a grad student filtering them for nutjobs, but if you're polite and concise you stand a good chance of getting an answer.

>> No.5572973

>>5572372
>fascists
>not always the enemy
You only like them because they worship the same kike as you do.

>> No.5572977

>>5572973
Fascists>Commies

>> No.5572993

>>5572372
For me was when we defended a shitty book by his partner Edward Herman that denied the Rwandan Genocide.

It seens to me that Noam Chomsky is so anti-American that he actually believes that Americans are literally the source of all the evil in the world. If evil is committed and the Americans aren't (or can't be alegued to be) involved, then it didn't happened at all.

This is, of course, very racist. When you deny that non-whites have agency, you are basically saying that they are more like dumb children than anything else, which is exactly how racists saw non-whites.

>> No.5572994

>>5572944

If you send him a thoughtful email you stand a pretty good chance of a response I think.

>> No.5572995

>>5572958
I don't see anything wrong with this other than that he shills for the enemy.

>> No.5572999

>>5572894
>b-but I'm not average guys... O-one day ill be part of the intellectual vanguard... Y-yeah... St-stupid normies...

>> No.5573018

>>5572924
That's not because the US is honourable. It's just a result of changing technology and better intellectual resources (IE: maybe don't send swathes of infantry marching towards machine guns kthx)

Everything he said there is right.

>> No.5573027

>>5572947
corporations are a state, why are you so etc.

>> No.5573031
File: 261 KB, 1600x581, 001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573031

>>5572880
So capitalism can survive.

>> No.5573034

>>5572977
They're both the exact same. At least commies can pretend the state just fucked the execution.

Fascists are the worst sort of faggot, and if you are one you're probably either a nationalist (opinion discarded) or 14.

>> No.5573040

>>5573034
>At least commies can pretend the state just fucked the execution.
>>5573034
>Fascists are the worst sort of faggot,
You have it the wrong way, Fascists are up-front of their hate and executions while Communists try to hide it behind egalitarian goals.
Both are shit but Commies are worse.

>> No.5573044
File: 73 KB, 600x408, abortist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573044

>>5572894
Meanwhile Joe McAverage's daughter goes to college and becomes a rabid Marxist-Leninist feminist.

>> No.5573047

>>5573027
>corporations are a state
No. Direct democracies like you're advocating can't tolerate dissenting economic systems, so they're not truly voluntary. So you can't leave them voluntarily (or at least, you can't opt out).

In that case you're just enacting the tyranny of the majority against a minority, which is the opposite of anarchy, it's statehood.

>> No.5573050

>>5573040
Commies have good intentions though. Fascists just can't find peaceful solutions to their social problems (not that commies can find peaceful solutions to their financial ones)

>> No.5573053

>>5573044
Lenin wasn't a leftist, you tard. (In fact, Lenin is mostly famous for attacking leftism and writing howto manuals for running successful coups.)

>> No.5573056

>>5573018
>That's not because the US is honourable. It's just a result of changing technology and better intellectual resources (IE: maybe don't send swathes of infantry marching towards machine guns kthx)

A) That is actually because the US is honourable

B) The validity of that statement is irrelevant, its the idea that he uses it as a fact and doesn't support it is the problem. Any conclusion he draws is meaningless because it's not that interesting. Proving this statement would actually be a feat, but just saying "the US is evil, here is a few pages of me talking about how things politicians say sound sinister in this context" is just self-wankery. Furthermore it is very easy to debate and defend the fact that when we invade countries, we don't generally take it is a policy to murder their males and rape and bring home their women, because it seems a little to evil for us. Hitler would have been a moderate had he tried to pull the shit he did a few hundred years before he actually did.

>> No.5573075

>>5571376
He is mainstream critique. At least Zizek is funny.

>> No.5573082
File: 6 KB, 214x235, gramsci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573082

>>5573050
>exterminating the counter-revolutionaries, capitalist roaders, kulaks, bloodsuckers, wreckers etc...
>"good intentions"

The greatest proof of the intellectual victory of communism, how it became a "cultural hegemony", a "omniscient, invisible power" like Gramsci said, is how it became common place notions that "communism had good intentions" or "that it works on paper" or that it is somehow "desirable".

Even anti-communists say that shit, is there another proof that you won or you will only realize that when you start killing us?

>> No.5573086

>>5573056
>that actually is because the US is honourable
Right so the overall decline in war casualties, improvements in armor and healthcare that mean if you get off the point of fire you're virtually guaranteed to live, those are all because the US is just better at war than every other country.

Just shut the fuck up. US causes civilian casualties all the fucking time and they've adopted a policy of shoot first, ask questions later.

I'm not saying I agree with him but he didnt say anything inaccurate. Get your head out of your sandy ass.

>> No.5573088

>>5572993
He also denied the Cambodian Genocide.

>> No.5573095

>>5573088
Yeah, but then he begin to say that the U.S. was to blame for it.

He couldn't do the same with Rwanda, though, so it makes it harder for him to find a way to accept it.

>> No.5573096

>>5573086
Every country that's ever fought a war has done this.

>> No.5573098

>>5572905
>the academia is, since the 1960s, dominated by revolutionary communists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goose-Step_(book)

>> No.5573099

>>5573082
>you won
Whoa whoa whoa

You're talking to a /pol/tard. I hate the commies but they actually have a desire to make things better, it's just based on falsities and indoctrination.

You just want to gas the kikes. Fascists kill their undesirable intellectuals too, and then some.

>> No.5573105

>>5573096
Right. The US still isnt honourable.

>> No.5573108

>>5573095
Well it's very easy to say that the Rwandan genocide is the result of ethnic tensions created by European imperialism.

Really he dosn't NEED to deny genocides, he just does. And that bothers me.

>> No.5573114

>>5573108
Rwandan genocide was economic, not really racial. There were still deaths even in areas that were fully Hutu.

>> No.5573116

>>5573086
>policy of shoot first, ask questions later

That's literally the only policy that has ever worked in history

Except unlike historically where it was murder/rape everyone in the town, then burn it to the ground and salt the fields, and never ask questions, it is identify target, identify weapon/risk factors, get confirmation to be allowed to target them, receive confirmation, attack target, then spend millions of dollars rebuilding the area and infrastructure, then leave and pay billions of dollars every year to the the country in question.

>> No.5573124

>>5573116
>and then incorrectly identify targets and blow up a van of children

>> No.5573127

>>5573082
>is how it became common place notions that "communism had good intentions" or "that it works on paper" or that it is somehow "desirable".
Now try the actually substantial things. The greatest proof of the non-victy of communism is that it has been reduced to this immaterial moralizing kind of shit. It's like when the liberals reduced the church to nothing and then went "the virtues are kinda nice I guess but you're never getting any real power again". Look at how the actual socialists states are portrayed. Look at how the leftists in the west don't even support socialists causes but welfare capitalism. It wouldn't surprise me if a 7 year old wouldn't be able to point out the difference between communism and nazism.

>actually arguing that the hegemony is anything but liberal-capitalist because some college hipsters endorse abortion and kikes teach identity politics at American universities

>> No.5573128

>>5572947
>Direct democracy is a state.
then lets have a single, gigantic state with lots of representatives that respond to their people

>> No.5573139

>>5573116
You think the war there was about terrorism, don't you lol ?

>> No.5573146

>>5573114
So was the holocaust. Doesn't mean the ethnic tensions weren't important or necessary for the whole thing to happen in the first place.

>> No.5573148

>>5573127
>what is subversion
There have been soviet defectors who straight up admitted this happened.

Look up "Yuri - deception was my job"

>> No.5573155

>>5573128
Or we could try actual anarchy you retard.
>m-muh neofeudalism

>> No.5573156

>>5573098
Even at the time Upton Sinclair wrote this book, most of American anti-capitalists came from academia.

Just look at the Soviet spies of the 1940s and 1950s. Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins, Harry Dexter White, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers... they all came straight from the colleges. When the NKVD went to Britain to recruit spies, they didn't went to the Labour movement, they went to Cambridge, and what a plenty of potential they found there.

>> No.5573175

>>5573127
Cultural hegemony is more important than economical and political power. The history of the XXth century shows that.

>The Lenin, Stalin and Hitler generation imagined that socialist economy would create this new kind of men. The deeper socialist thinkers – Gramsci, Lukacs and the Frankfurt School – saw in this a dangerous economicist mistake. The soul of the “new man” would not be born from socialism, but should come before it and create it. This idea sounded heretical to Marxist orthodoxes of the time (although, on the other side of the socialist range, it was not totally alien to the Nazi-fascist theoreticians). It has spread only in the last decades, providing the basis for the formidable expansion of internationalist leftism, which survived even Soviet economy’s fall, and has reached its peak precisely in the years following USSR’s breakup. Today’s international socialism looks less for socialist regimes creation and more for the installation of a global complex of mutations in civil society, in morals and in family relations. The change in the order of priorities caused a harmonic change in the strategy and choice of means. Formerly, the revolutionary movement’s essential tool was an ideologically monolithic party. Today, it is a variety of leftist parties only apparently disconnected, it is the international NGOs’ networks, it is the “social movements”, it is the large international organizations. Their unity of action can only be grasped from outside by those who are aware of the cultural war’s subtleties, infinitely more complex than the older open conflict between pro-capitalist and pro-communist parties.

Olavo de Carvalho, Roots of the New World

>> No.5573178

>>5573139
>lol
Cute, first of all you haven't even identify where we are talking about.

For example I could tell you about Korea, where if South Koreans don't say "thank you America for saving my ass" every night, they're doing it wrong.

I could be talking about Iraq, where we invaded in a misguided attempt to overthrow a dictator and at the same time score a few points in Middle East stability and relations.

Or Afghanistan, (which we did invade for terrorism reasons, unless you think that we just really wanted to burn a few poppy fields)

Unless of course you think we did any of this it for oil :), in which case don't bother replying, you're an idiot

>> No.5573189

>>5571385
>2014
>not knowing communism as marx envisioned it is stateless

>> No.5573194

>>5573189
Communism as Marx envisioned would have happened somewhere in the 1890s.

>> No.5573195

>>5573178
>stabilize the Middle East
That was the polar opposite reason we went to the Middle East.

Don't act pretentious when you have no idea what you're talking about fagwagon.

>> No.5573204

>>5573194
Okay.

>> No.5573216

>>5573148
A buttblasted anti-establishment charlatan like yourself would be the product of subversion. They don't really care what causes you champion.

>> No.5573220

>>5571991
Really? Sounds retarded as hell.

Gonna have to read him at some point

>> No.5573226

>>5573216
What are you even talking about

>> No.5573236

>>5573226
What are you even talking about

>> No.5573298
File: 443 KB, 800x1200, poorbaby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573298

>>5573195
>has no rebuttal
>has to resort to name calling

:3

>> No.5573306

>>5573298
But he was right. We invaded the Middle-East to destabilize the region.

>> No.5573316

>>5573298
>thinks we went to the Middle East to win humanitarian points and stabilize the reason
>doesn't understand geopolitics while pretending to be some enlightened individual with knowledge that can save us from the blood thirsty kikes
>has to resort to posting pictures of faggy looking gooks on a Korean Television Production Board.

>> No.5573340

>>5573306
>>5573316
Let's put these into the unsupported opinion bin, right next all of Chomsky's work

Make sure to get it in by Tuesday, because that's when the opinion bin collector comes around and picks up unsupported ideas

>> No.5573342

>>5573306
We went into the middle east to garner influence and to cockblock Russia/Iran. It's basically the continuation of the US containment policy. Assad in Syria right now is a known Russian ally.

>> No.5573345

>>5573342
How do you justify supporting Saddam in the 80's then?

>> No.5573349
File: 10 KB, 238x276, bash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573349

>>5573342
>two thousand and four teen
>not supporting assad

>> No.5573375

>>5573155
>Or we could try actual anarchy
>actual anarchy
hahaha, no

>>5573156
>capitalists, rich people and other powerful people can't also be communists
if their work implies pushing for a capitalistic ideology and practise, their own ideology doesn't matter

>> No.5573393

>>5573175
>>Formerly, the revolutionary movement’s essential tool was an ideologically monolithic party. Today, it is a variety of leftist parties only apparently disconnected, it is the international NGOs’ networks, it is the “social movements”, it is the large international organizations.
>implying social democrats didn't exist at the time
>implying there wasn't a whole range of "socialism" and "socialists"
bull fucking shit

>> No.5573411
File: 15 KB, 300x224, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573411

/lit/, convince me that Camus's Absurdism is not a reasonable way to view life and the universe.
None of that Kierkegaard pseudo-religion shit; I mean Absurdism without trying to reconcile spirituality.

>> No.5573413

>>5573411
Boy, I'm dumb. Sorry, chaps.

>> No.5573414

>>5573127
>the hegemony is anything but liberal-capitalist
Truly, I live in the future.

>> No.5573434

>>5573411
Didn't you start a thread with this?

>> No.5573440
File: 63 KB, 399x382, 1381018478837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573440

>>5571740
>the media encourages you to be right wing.
Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.5573443

>>5573434
Not before accidentally posting it here. Fucking mobile.

>> No.5573476

I don't hate him. I think he's imperfect, and at one point when I emailed him asking him about gun laws, he vaguely handwaved the question while implying he was for laws forbidding the ownership of assault rifles.

But I don't hate him.

>> No.5573487
File: 15 KB, 537x360, the-famous-pose-of-albert-camus1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5573487

>>5573411
But Camus' absurdism is the most reasonable way to view life.

>> No.5573489

>>5573476
pic?

>> No.5573516

>>5573476
Why does Chomsky hate an armed proletariat?

>> No.5573532

>>5572597
>>5572911
>>5573440
when did /lit/ become /pol/ ?
hell, /pol/ changed after the gaymergayt, why are these people still here?

>> No.5573552

>>5573489
Can't find it. This was a couple years ago and I lost access to my old email address. But for what it's worth, he replies to every personal email he gets from someone who seems interested, so you can email him yourself if you want. Sometimes it does take a few days.

>> No.5573911

>>5573532
>when did /lit/ become /pol/?
Anon, I don't even frequent /pol/. However, I think it may be of some help to mention that I live in the United States. I don't know how it is where you live, but in the United States the overwhelming majority of media coverage leans significantly to the left with the exception of Fox news. While Fox news is rather severe in their conservative balance, the number of liberal branches of media far outweigh it.

>> No.5574183

>>5573050
>Commies have good intentions though
No

>> No.5574193

>>5573911
This
Fucking yuropoors need to GTFO

>> No.5574249

Corporations don't have political allegiances, people.

>> No.5574253

>>5573911
>in the United States
>the left
anon, you don't have a "left" in the US, you have two rights

>> No.5574257

>>5574253
No we have a left, anything farther left than the Republicans is too far left; fuck off Commieshit.

>> No.5574282

>>5574257
see >>5573532
>when did /lit/ become /pol/ ?

>> No.5574290

>>5574282
I don't browse /pol/, I'm just /lit/ incarnate, extremely contrarian to the point where I align myself against the counter-culture of the time, I have no personal beliefs whatsoever.

>> No.5574296

>>5573911
>liberal
>left
hahaha

>> No.5574299

>>5574290
>use words like 'commieshit'
>I don't browse /pol/

Sure.

>> No.5574312

>>5574299
>falling for b8
lmao

>> No.5574316

>>5574299
communists are abhorrent fuckheads just like nazis you idiotic shit

>> No.5574351

>>5573911
I think it may be of some help to mention that I have lived in the United States, and you don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.5574361

>>5574351
see >>5574257

>> No.5574376

>>5574253
Actually, it is the opposite. There is no right in the United States, they have two "lefts". What passes as "Conservatism" in the United States is defending the ideals of a liberal revolution of the XVIIIth century and it's Constitution. Now what would Joseph de Maistre say about that?

http://web.archive.org/web/20081007103704/http://www.worldandi.com/public/1986/october/mt10.cfm

>> No.5574387

>>5574361
see >>5574351

>> No.5574391 [DELETED] 

>>5574351
see >>5574257

>> No.5574397
File: 58 KB, 622x626, 5c2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5574397

>>5574257
>>5574376

>> No.5574401

>>5573345
Or Algeria in the 90s.

I mean, the whole Chomskyite argument is based on "America supported islamic terrorism to weaken arab nationalism". So there you had a clear arab nationalist state, Algeria, a indigenous islamic terrorist movement (that, contrary to what they believe, it seens to have appeared without U.S. support) and in their civil war the Americans supported the nationalist side!

They can't explain that, so they don't mention it too much.

>> No.5574408

>>5574391
see >>5574351

>> No.5574411

>>5574408
see >>5574257

>> No.5574412

>>5574397
Just read the article i posted, it explains properly.

With the exception of a bunch of rednecks lamenting the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" in the Southern United States, there is no rightism in America.

>> No.5574420

>>5573345
to counter Iran.

And the U.S never 'supported' him it just wasn't interested in deposing of him

>> No.5574424

>>5573532
It's one person.

>> No.5574425

>>5573345
He provided stability which favored US interests.

>> No.5574426

>>5574411
see >>5574351

>> No.5574427

>>5574424
No, he quoted me but the other quotes aren't me.

>> No.5574429

>>5571376
Because he's a stupid inbred ginger redneck who tries to cover it by dying his hair gray and talking like a pretentious college educator.

>> No.5574432 [DELETED] 

>>5574426
see >>5574257
Continue to be mad tho u commie fuck

>> No.5574445

>>5574432
see >>5574351
: )

>> No.5574453

>>5574445
see >>5574290
˙͜>˙

>> No.5574600

>>5571376
>Why is it cool to hate Chomsky

Because he has devoted his life to being full of shit.

>> No.5574700

>>5574600

>full of truth and justice

fixed

>> No.5574709

>>5574700
>full of opinions of varying quality

Repaired entirely and even upgraded.

>> No.5574747

>>5574709

>implying truth and justice are not objective standards

reformatted and absolutely supersized

>> No.5574759

>>5571376
Because everything he says turns out to be empirically wrong

If you disagree you're exactly the kind of cancer this board doesn't need and should navigate your way back to r/books

>> No.5574762

>>5574759
>empiricism
You're the one that should go back to reddit.

>> No.5574764

>>5574759

give 1 example

>> No.5574874

>>5574747
I didn't say truth and justice weren't objective standards. I think they are. I just think he's right about some things and wrong about others.
>>5574762
Empiricists who reject rationalism in favor of pure empiricism are full of shit, but if you completely reject empirical evidence, that's equally silly.

>> No.5575097

>>5574764
Khmer Rouge, Srebrenica, all his work in linguistics

>>5574762
>n-no, YOU go back to reddit ;_;
Good job kid, you really showed me

>> No.5575104

>>5574874
>>5575097
>empiricism
>>>/reddit/
>>>/r/atheism

>> No.5575128

I love Chomsky, though.

>> No.5575130

>>5573340
>>5573340
>I have no idea how geopolitics works
>my statements are facts but yours are opinions
>I am retarded

>> No.5575131

>>5574874
You think truth and justice are objective standards? How so?

>> No.5575134

>>5575097
>Khmer Rouge
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm
http://michaelvickery.org/
http://wow.embarassing.pleb

>> No.5575135

>>5573306
>>5573316
>>5575130
>We invaded the Middle-East to destabilize the region.
Are you retarded?
We invaded for the exact opposite reason.
We want stability because instability favors left-leaning revolutions which means closed markets to Western markets.

>> No.5575136

>>5574411
see >>5574408

>> No.5575139

>>5575136
see >>5574453

>> No.5575141

>>5575135
Yeah, our invasion clearly stabilized the Middle East.

>> No.5575147

>>5575141
It kept left-leaning and Western market-closing powers from gaining power, righteousness and honor be damned.

>> No.5575149

>>5575139
8F <-------drool face

>> No.5575160

>>5575147
Justify that it did, tell me why we should care if it did, and then you can tell me if it was worth what it cost.

>> No.5575171

>>5574420
The US supported Iraq in the 80s through aid, training, intelligence, weapons, etc.

>> No.5575173

>>5575160
>Justify that it did
It supported right-wing dictatorships such as Saddam which kept nationalists insurgents in check for a while.
>tell me why we should care if it did
It kept the Eastern oil market open to our Western allies.
>and then you can tell me if it was worth what it cost.
Yes, it kept Eastern oil markets open to our Western allies.

>> No.5575176

>>5575147
No. The USA supports Saudi Arabia and fundamentalist Islam at every step, even when doing so actually hurts American self-interest. This is an empirical and undeniable fact.

(Now, why the USA is doing this I have no idea, reading some rational explanations for this would be interesting.)

>> No.5575180

>>5575176
>even when doing so actually hurts American self-interest.
Not in the large picture.
>Now, why the USA is doing this I have no idea
Because it's not against our interests, we may not need foreign oil as much we used to, but our allies sure do, so we have to make sure to keep Saudi Arabia happy.

>> No.5575189

>>5575180
Surely it would be better to, you know, stop needing so much fucking oil?

>> No.5575194

>>5575189
Obviously, but until recently that didn't seem feasible for the near future.

>> No.5575201

>>5575194
It's unfeasible because of, you know, the values and choices and political commitments the American populace has made. In other words, we're sabotaging ourselves. But it's still sabotage.

>> No.5575202

>>5575180
>Not in the large picture.
Nobody knows the 'large picture', not even Obama.

Now if by that mean 'not always', then you're wrong. I dare you to name one time when the USA went against Saudi wishes. (Meanwhile USA doing something self-detrimental only because it would please the Saud is something that keeps happening almost every year.)

>> No.5575214

>>5573911
The NY Times, WaPo, and the LA Times are all status quo bourgie newspapers (not that they don't produce good reporting every day.

For what you said to be convincing, you'd have to define "right" and "left," find a quick and dirty method of identifying "right" and "left" bias in the media, and then use a corpus to measure media bias. I think your post is just anecdotal bullshitting.

On the other hand, I think most journalists probably DO identify as democrats or "liberals." Political realities are much more complicated, though. I've met too many republicans who believe in a woman's right to choose and various social welfare programs, and I've met too many democrats who complain about "multiculturalism" and support property rights above the general welfare of a city or state.

Anyhow, the "right" and "left" shift from generation to generation (cf The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual). If you could find core values for either (if either are more than convenient figments), I'm not sure we'd be comfortable with what those core values are.

>> No.5575218

>>5575201
No I was talking about the 70's and 80's, we weren't anywhere near being able to see our military being powered by other energy sources in the near future.
>>5575202
The large picture is keeping oil prices down so our Western allies dependent on foreign oil remain strong, even if that means doing something detrimental to us in the short run.

>> No.5575272

>>5575173
Lol it was worth $1.7+ trillion just for Iraq War 2? It's gonna be mud on our face when we go peak oil anyway.

We sell a fuck-load of arms and and fund and support proxy wars and then actually fight mind-bogglingly expensive wars in the Middle East, and you say, Well, it kept nationalist insurgents in check "for a while" (which you assert unconvincingly), as if the arms flooding the Middle East make that endeavor somehow worthwhile (as if we're supposed to even care about what happens in every country on the other side of the world), and then you say we should care because of oil. Maybe diverting all those efforts and resources away from military support and interventions on the other side of the world and towards domestic infrastructure and energy R&D would have been more sensible. It'd certainly have been less deadly and I can't imagine it would've had the same long-term side effects.

>> No.5575290

>>5575272
>as if we're supposed to even care about what happens in every country on the other side of the world
We shouldn't, which is why we're doing this.
>domestic
That's the thing, we aren't doing it for domestic reasons, we're no longer reliant on foreign oil, but a great portion of our Western allies are, and will be for the foreseeable future.

>> No.5575296

>>5575218
Our military? Why not our nation?

>> No.5575305

>>5575296
Because militaries are what bear most of the burden of war.

>> No.5575337

I strongly suspect countries with oil would have kept selling oil because there's money in it, but I don't care to argue something this hypothetical. Our values are clearly different.

The only time I've really enjoyed Chomsky was when I read his book about the US/CIA involvement in Central America. It was well-researched and sourced, although that's not to say that my reading didn't benefit from a lot of supplemental material that didn't support everything Chomsky wrote, but the issue is so complicated and difficult to report that I don't think anyone has gotten it completely "right" or ever will.

I don't enjoy his short political tracts.

Some linguists I follow aren't Chomskyites, but the transformational-generative grammar field is pretty diverse and Chomsky can't be said to be responsible for all of it, and you can find similar endeavors going back to Jespersen's Analytic Syntax, so I guess "deep structure" is Chomsky's big revolutionary contribution? I dunno. Obviously not my area of expertise.

>> No.5575377

>>5571510
Ah, the plagiarist critcising one of the most accomplished men of the modern era. How precious.

I like Zizek's essay work, when he's not jumping the shark with the psychoanalysis, but he needs to stop believing his own hype.

>> No.5575401

>>5571510
toofunny

>> No.5575506

>>5575135
The Middle East is abundant with natural resources and had huge capital available via the oil trade.

Destabilizing the region prevented a build up of a regional power (specifically naval power; the Muslims possessing the crossroads of the world by both land and sea is the key here). The chief threat was naval. If you fuck up the region and make it toxic to get involved in, the capital markets don't tend to do so well.

>> No.5577171

>>5575104
>s-stop bullying me, you're really hurting my feelings!

Looks like you'd be more at home on >>>/s4s/ than /lit/, kiddo