Good old Noem - if there's a bandwagen he'll jump on it - If there's a popular cause he'll support it - if there's a theory he'll like it - if there's an original idea he'll claim it's his
Noam Chomsky is one of greatest critics of American Foreign Policy there is. He is a mine of information, who has constantly come under Media attack over nearly everything he says.
His championing of underdogs in political conflicts doesn't mean he jumps on the bandwagon. He is standing up for those people in the face of Imperialism, Racism, Oppression....
It's easy. People hate Chomsky because Noam disagrees with them. And Noam is right. And Noam can damn well prove he's right with impeccable logic and with a close regard for the documentary evidence. Nobody likes a smartass, and, though I love him to bits, Noam is the one of the biggest smartasses on the planet!
It's exceptionally rare to find someone who can win a proper actual political debate with Chomsky. That's why the likes of Noam-hater have to resort to abuse, and most of his other critics have to resort to falsifying and distorting what he says, when they're not just smearing him outright. The simple truth is, they can't beat his actual arguments.
So pity poor Noam Hater, or point at him and laugh, if you're that way inclined. It must really suck knowing that someone out there can demolish every argument you've ever used for all your most prized and fervently held beliefs, and then do it to the next 10 guys who come along, without breaking a sweat. Poor thing.
I thought chomsky was a leftie ? a celebrity Lefty. I guess his fee is quite a wodge. he also earns good wonga from his publisher and when the left needs him he can be wheeled out to promote "their" cause . If he dropped down dead tomorrow "the poor" wouldn't give a sun dried dog turd as most of them don't hang out with the intellectual radical chic bourgeoisie of which he is an integral part. and as we all know by now, left and right is the basix of divide and rule just or two very similar ways of shafting the people, unfortunately you don't get taught that at university you learn it on bulding sites in factories and on the street and other such places ..
i hope you grow old and grizzled and never give support to the people you love around you because well, just everything sucks, right? people trying to do any good are just worthless because they are this or they or that little thing that is different than you....
GET A REALITY CHECK!! NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE IF YOU CONSTANTLY PUT DOWN ANYTHING THAT IS TRYING TO CHANGE THIS FUCKED UP WORLD!
Chomsky remains in safety literally and intellectually. He makes pronouncements in an intellectually cowardly way, with the get out clause, I'm not a strategist. Presumambly he has a strategy for filling in his tax forms, going on holiday, publishing a book and the like, but when it comes to military or political matters he can only be diagnostic. If you compare this with people who truily fought to see their beliefs brought to reality, whether or not you agree entirely or in part with what they believed Chomsky to my mind is an intellectual coward and all the more ineffectual for that, I hope his work in linguistics has led somewhere because he makes no difference to the current ideological climate, much of what he rights is so obvious, that of course you agree but anyone could say it, of course USA acts according to its power interests in imperial fashion. You only have to look at the bookshelves in News from Nowhere to see that these 'liberal anarchists' are careerists, who pass comment on whatever new phase of political engineering is happening around the world, and there we have it a new book, on Central Asian Oil Politics, Fundamentalism in the Middle East, the tentacles of Al Quaida, Corporate Machinations, commentary, commentary, commentary, but there is no guts in this, for an example of guts and integrety I would offer for example Robert Fisk currently in Iraq. My final complaint is that from what I've read of Chomsky, several books and and many articles he does not deal with class, but rather talks disengeiously of the powerful and the powerless. Without an analysis of class in any conflict, be it Palestine, Ireland or wherever the pronuncements are irrelevant. Am I happy to see a bourgois government in Ireland exploiting Irish people any more than one in Britain exploiting British people - of course not. The same applies for any region, Palestine, Iraq, Yugoslavia, whilst Chomsky looks at economic systems of neo-liberalism and military adventures to uphold them he will not go to the point of advocating effective response (revolutionary) against them, and blandly talks about us V them. Chomsky is no threat to the American Establishment, they cultivate him as their 'dissident pet', proof of freedom of speech, since he doesn't talk to the masses he is no threat, unlike the Black Panthers who had to be shot imprisoned and set up such were there ACTIONS. If you look ath Bourgois ideology it is happy enough to contend with whatever is said against it, it breaks it down with the 'chemical agents' of a vociferous media, as long as nothing that is advocated is in anyway implemented, such as with the Black Panthers, at that point you become threatening. Chomsky is largely irrelevant for the following reasons 1) he only advocates and does not act 2) What he advocates is not useful for overthrowing power 3) Those that could overthrow power do not read Chomsky and those that read Chomsky would never act in an effective manner to challenge authority.
Sorry to piss on the Chomsky bonfire, or Chomsky bandwagon, but really if you are looking for intellectual heroes be a bit more rigourous in your criteria.
What do call writing numerous books, engaging in several ongoing, longstanding rigerous written debates, attending, speaking, organising and inspiring meetings all over the world consistantly for nearly fortry years?
You want him to don a cape and fly around? Or perhaps grow a che gotee and overthrow a a few dodgy regiems?
2) What he advocates is not useful for overthrowing power
Oh no, not much!!! Why on earth would one want to have an intimate understanding of power structures and the people and organistions that run them? It's not like understanding a thing has ever proved useful[sic]!
3) Those that could overthrow power do not read Chomsky and those that read Chomsky would never act in an effective manner to challenge authority.
A neat little homily - and how do you know exactly? Surely your not engaging in a little ego pontification there? Of course, your show us your evidence now won't you?
There's a critique of Chomsky here - http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whochoms.htm from an Anarchist perspective by John Zerzan. Chomsky has become a 'darling of the left', even the SWP quote him these days. But, from an anarchist perspective, I think it's hard to swallow his liberalism over many issues - anyone who's read a fair amount of Chomsky will know what I mean. He does favour political elections, and the democratic political process (he was recently quoted as saying that Kerry would be better than Bush) and is very much pro-technology and science.
And there speaks someone who used to view him pretty much in the same light as many posters here.
Zersan vs chomsky is an old debate within US 'anarchism'.
check Murray Bookchins key article on the 'unbridgable chasm' between lifestyle anarchists like zerzan and the revolutionary [socialist]anarchists of the older spanish school. you will find it easily online
The problem being everyone claiming to be the most anarchist
Zerzan is a primitivist anti-collectivist anti-socialist who hates new technology.
In the UK many would refer to these people as green fascists.They have also been known advocate genocidal destruction of human civilisation to save the planet
Well let's have a look at the relevance and actions of Chomsky and Gueverao since they are brought up, it might illustrate my point.
Gueverao by his actions (note that last word it's critical)in the field of soldiering, medicine and general organisation contributed to the overthrow of feudal capitalism on the island of Cuba, freeing some of the poorest people on the earth from effective slavery. What were the real terms of these actions? People for the first time in history given accesss to adequate medical care, education and such like, decreased child infant mortality rates, increased life expectancy, literacy levels like wise that matched and surpassed the 1st World. Ask an ordinary Cuban from the era of the 60's as to the relevance of Mr Guevaro in their lives, did they change for the better (with the exception of Bourgois Cubans now whinging and moaning to borrow a phrase in Miami), I'm quite certain there will be recognition of the relevance of Guevarao's actions.
Now who is Mr Chomsky relevant to? If I walked round the estate where I live and asked people about Chomsky I would be met with blank looks, he is quite simply unheard of by the vast majority of the masses. So who is Chomsky relevant to, since not them? Well he speaks to the pampered offspring of the middling classes, that is to say the white collar administrators and policing agents of the establishment - to be specific, teachers, social workers, educationalists, mental health advisors, tax inspectors, administrators of private and public organisations, the civil service generally, co-opted union moderates, university lecturers, solicitors etc etc (non-exhaustive list). The evidence? Only of my own eyes and ears as a listen to aficionados of Chomsky and note their background and mores.
Essentially it's 'comfort eating' it allows people to rebel and not to rebel(much like the effect of drink in Macbeth). So individuals who's own intelligence tells them their is something injust about the world system can be comforted without in anyway having to break down the structures that have created the power. So people talk of 'creating your own power', 'dismissing the class arguement' (it's natural when you come from a covetous class not to wish to refer to it and pretend it's not relevant).
So remains my belief that Chomsky is non-threatening to the American establishment/capitalist economic system, in fact is awarded quite a comfortable place in it with police protection thrown in for good measure should those nasty Zionists come a calling (compare with American involvement in Guevaro's death and why? Guevarao was threatening, Chomsky is not), is not relevant to the people with fire in their bellies to attack the system in a meaningful way as opposed to adventurism, and is merely 'soul food' for the wealthy West's lost materialist class who can't find meaning in their lives but wish to retain all the advantages given to them by their ambitious and exploitative parents.
Anyway this Chomsky Zone is too rarified air for me, so I'll take my leave of you now
While we're on the subject of people who aren't 'useful for overthrowing power' - well Zerzan is probably the least likely candidate for this. I'd stick to Chomsky anyday.
Recorded live at MIT, Class War: The Attack on Working People marks the third volume in the series of lectures bringing Noam Chomsky's words and vision to CD.
Corporations and their political allies wage an unrelenting class war against working people. Privatization, the market and level playing fields are the mantras of the day. CEOs tell workers to tighten their belts while their own wallets are bulging. Income inequality is more acute in the US than in any other industrialized country, even surpassing Britain. Glamorous Manhattan has disparities in wealth that exceed Guatemala. People are working longer hours, producing more and earning less. Wages have been stagnant or declining for more than twenty years. The ranks of the poor have mushroomed. Meanwhile profits are at unprecedented levels.
'Class War' is vintage Chomsky. His astute analyses provides excellent tools for self-defense. His commitment, involvement and accessibility are exemplary. It's no wonder that the New Statesman calls him "The conscience of the American people." Class War is essential listening for everyone interested in building a true democracy. Includes a question and answer session based on the Oklahoma Bombing.
Everyone will probably be united in rabid hatred of the man as a "liberal, SWP puppet, blah blah blah blah..."
Compare that to the defence of Chomsky on this thread. IMO I don't see anything wrong with either person, as humans, you are entitled to disagree with some of what they have to say.
I think the problem here is that some people are in love with Chomsky, almost in terms of a 'cult of personality'. I'm sure that's the last thing we need, and I'm sure he'd agree with that. To assert that 'he's always right' is simply ridiculous.
The Zerzan article doesn't falsify what he's said, or smear him. I've read a lot of Chomsky, believe me, and he certainly never calls himself an Anarchist. He may be influenced by it, but that's not the same thing. Remember the 'Anarchists' in Spain in the the Revolution that joined the government? That article is a serious, though brief, critique. If needs be, respond to it, don't throw mud around.
As for Zerzan, '*' presumably hasn't read a lot of his work, if she/he had it'd be clear that Zerzan is every bit as much the intellectual as Chomsky is. To label Zerzan as a 'fascist' is politically illiterate and fucking stupid. We all know who the fascists are, don't label your own comrades with it. And I've never read anything justifying genocide in any of Zerzan's writings. That's a plain falsehood and a smear.
He's certainly not 'anti-socialist', though he is critical of socialists, as anyone should be after the history of the last 100 years. Christ, even Blair calls himself a socialist, so maybe that makes me 'anti-socialist'?
Krop, I don't have a league table of people in the movement who are 'most useful' to overthrow power, as that kind of thinking is everything I'm against. Cult of personality again, methinks. Again, someone who can't be bothered to do the reading.
What troubles me is this 'romance' that people have for Chomsky, almost as if it's not possible to criticise him. I have a lot of time for a fair amount of his work (not the linguistics I hasten to add), but that doesn't mean I'm open to different views on him. He is not a god - 'no gods, no masters'.
I don't think anyone was about to put the man on a god-like pedestal. But there was a completely hateful and illogical post against him on the thread, and people have rushed to defend him.
Chomsky is very good at what he does, which is to analyse and expose the power structures of Western Imperialism, and unravel the complex web of media deception. And that is very valuable, because it acts as a tool for those of us who may not want to do that, and may want to be more direct, like Che Guevara. But Che had the works of various socialist intellectuals as HIS inspiration, and was able to transform theory into action, and that was the role HE took. We all play different roles in life, and simply because one man isn't all things to all men is no reason to diss him.
Chomsky is a very intelligent man, but he's not the leader of any revolution, nor does he purport to be. Mindlessly hating him is an unconstructive attitude. We learn what we can from each other, and if we see something that needs to be done, we do it, rather than complain that someone else is not doing it. After all, what have you done that means I should respect you as much as I do Chomsky, or Che, or any other number of left-wing 'darlings'?
This is aimed at the people who simply attacked him for no reason, rather than the posters with genuine critiques, which I accept.
Sounds like you're mistaking a prophet for a messiah...
The fact is, people need first to learn the facts in order to know that change is necessary. That is the position of people like Chomsky (as I see it). Encouraging us ask questions, encouraging us to research information before using someone else's opinions as our standpoint. This, I think, he does well.
If change can be made, it is up to us to decide what, and how to make those changes. One man can't change the world, and perhaps he isn't interested in doing so anyway. In fact, if anarchy is his favoured mode of government (which he has said, but hasn't specified how - mostly, I think, because like all potential forms of government, it has its flaws, and is open to possibilities of corruption or failure and nearly impossible to prejudge for certain as to how it will work in practise), then his position in it is unerring - in an anarchic society you choose your mode of work based on what you are good at, and because that is what you enjoy. Chomsky, I am guessing, would not make a good fighter (not that this is his standpoint, of course), but he does make a good historian.
My first paragraph stands here; you are criticising him based on something he has never purported to be.
Comments
Hide the following 17 comments
excellent
26.03.2004 18:00
- if there's a bandwagen he'll jump on it
- If there's a popular cause he'll support it
- if there's a theory he'll like it
- if there's an original idea he'll claim it's his
Noem - yesterday's man
noem hater
Noam-Hater?
26.03.2004 18:56
His championing of underdogs in political conflicts doesn't mean he jumps on the bandwagon. He is standing up for those people in the face of Imperialism, Racism, Oppression....
Why do you hate him so much?
Matt
Why hate chomsky?
26.03.2004 21:23
It's exceptionally rare to find someone who can win a proper actual political debate with Chomsky. That's why the likes of Noam-hater have to resort to abuse, and most of his other critics have to resort to falsifying and distorting what he says, when they're not just smearing him outright. The simple truth is, they can't beat his actual arguments.
So pity poor Noam Hater, or point at him and laugh, if you're that way inclined. It must really suck knowing that someone out there can demolish every argument you've ever used for all your most prized and fervently held beliefs, and then do it to the next 10 guys who come along, without breaking a sweat. Poor thing.
Aim Here
Celeb Status
27.03.2004 08:10
he also earns good wonga from his publisher and when the left needs him he can
be wheeled out to promote "their" cause .
If he dropped down dead tomorrow "the poor" wouldn't give a sun dried dog turd as most of
them don't hang out with the intellectual radical chic bourgeoisie of which he is an
integral part. and as we all know by now, left and right is the basix of divide and rule just or
two very similar ways of shafting the people, unfortunately you don't get taught that at university
you learn it on bulding sites in factories and on the street and other such places ..
billy bunter
unbelievable
27.03.2004 13:07
i hope you grow old and grizzled and never give support to the people you love around you because well, just everything sucks, right? people trying to do any good are just worthless because they are this or they or that little thing that is different than you....
GET A REALITY CHECK!! NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE IF YOU CONSTANTLY PUT DOWN ANYTHING THAT IS TRYING TO CHANGE THIS FUCKED UP WORLD!
ron
Chomsky remains in safety
27.03.2004 13:51
My final complaint is that from what I've read of Chomsky, several books and and many articles he does not deal with class, but rather talks disengeiously of the powerful and the powerless. Without an analysis of class in any conflict, be it Palestine, Ireland or wherever the pronuncements are irrelevant. Am I happy to see a bourgois government in Ireland exploiting Irish people any more than one in Britain exploiting British people - of course not. The same applies for any region, Palestine, Iraq, Yugoslavia, whilst Chomsky looks at economic systems of neo-liberalism and military adventures to uphold them he will not go to the point of advocating effective response (revolutionary) against them, and blandly talks about us V them.
Chomsky is no threat to the American Establishment, they cultivate him as their 'dissident pet', proof of freedom of speech, since he doesn't talk to the masses he is no threat, unlike the Black Panthers who had to be shot imprisoned and set up such were there ACTIONS. If you look ath Bourgois ideology it is happy enough to contend with whatever is said against it, it breaks it down with the 'chemical agents' of a vociferous media, as long as nothing that is advocated is in anyway implemented, such as with the Black Panthers, at that point you become threatening. Chomsky is largely irrelevant for the following reasons 1) he only advocates and does not act 2) What he advocates is not useful for overthrowing power 3) Those that could overthrow power do not read Chomsky and those that read Chomsky would never act in an effective manner to challenge authority.
Sorry to piss on the Chomsky bonfire, or Chomsky bandwagon, but really if you are looking for intellectual heroes be a bit more rigourous in your criteria.
monk
mundane whinging ...
27.03.2004 19:04
What do call writing numerous books, engaging in several ongoing, longstanding rigerous written debates, attending, speaking, organising and inspiring meetings all over the world consistantly for nearly fortry years?
You want him to don a cape and fly around? Or perhaps grow a che gotee and overthrow a a few dodgy regiems?
2) What he advocates is not useful for overthrowing power
Oh no, not much!!! Why on earth would one want to have an intimate understanding of power structures and the people and organistions that run them? It's not like understanding a thing has ever proved useful[sic]!
3) Those that could overthrow power do not read Chomsky and those that read Chomsky would never act in an effective manner to challenge authority.
A neat little homily - and how do you know exactly? Surely your not engaging in a little ego pontification there? Of course, your show us your evidence now won't you?
Banal, very banal.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Critique of Chomsky
27.03.2004 20:07
And there speaks someone who used to view him pretty much in the same light as many posters here.
xrichx
unbridgable chasms
28.03.2004 05:47
check Murray Bookchins key article on the 'unbridgable chasm'
between lifestyle anarchists like zerzan and the
revolutionary [socialist]anarchists of the older spanish school.
you will find it easily online
The problem being everyone claiming to be the most anarchist
Zerzan is a primitivist anti-collectivist anti-socialist who hates
new technology.
In the UK many would refer to these people as green fascists.They have also been known advocate genocidal destruction of human civilisation to save the planet
*
since you mention it
28.03.2004 12:57
Gueverao by his actions (note that last word it's critical)in the field of soldiering, medicine and general organisation contributed to the overthrow of feudal capitalism on the island of Cuba, freeing some of the poorest people on the earth from effective slavery. What were the real terms of these actions? People for the first time in history given accesss to adequate medical care, education and such like, decreased child infant mortality rates, increased life expectancy, literacy levels like wise that matched and surpassed the 1st World. Ask an ordinary Cuban from the era of the 60's as to the relevance of Mr Guevaro in their lives, did they change for the better (with the exception of Bourgois Cubans now whinging and moaning to borrow a phrase in Miami), I'm quite certain there will be recognition of the relevance of Guevarao's actions.
Now who is Mr Chomsky relevant to? If I walked round the estate where I live and asked people about Chomsky I would be met with blank looks, he is quite simply unheard of by the vast majority of the masses. So who is Chomsky relevant to, since not them? Well he speaks to the pampered offspring of the middling classes, that is to say the white collar administrators and policing agents of the establishment - to be specific, teachers, social workers, educationalists, mental health advisors, tax inspectors, administrators of private and public organisations, the civil service generally, co-opted union moderates, university lecturers, solicitors etc etc (non-exhaustive list).
The evidence? Only of my own eyes and ears as a listen to aficionados of Chomsky and note their background and mores.
Essentially it's 'comfort eating' it allows people to rebel and not to rebel(much like the effect of drink in Macbeth). So individuals who's own intelligence tells them their is something injust about the world system can be comforted without in anyway having to break down the structures that have created the power. So people talk of 'creating your own power', 'dismissing the class arguement' (it's natural when you come from a covetous class not to wish to refer to it and pretend it's not relevant).
So remains my belief that Chomsky is non-threatening to the American establishment/capitalist economic system, in fact is awarded quite a comfortable place in it with police protection thrown in for good measure should those nasty Zionists come a calling (compare with American involvement in Guevaro's death and why? Guevarao was threatening, Chomsky is not), is not relevant to the people with fire in their bellies to attack the system in a meaningful way as opposed to adventurism, and is merely 'soul food' for the wealthy West's lost materialist class who can't find meaning in their lives but wish to retain all the advantages given to them by their ambitious and exploitative parents.
Anyway this Chomsky Zone is too rarified air for me, so I'll take my leave of you now
hope you enjoy the pretzels
monk
Zerzan
28.03.2004 13:06
Krop
CLASS WAR The Attack on Working People
28.03.2004 13:31
The Attack on Working People
Noam Chomsky
Recorded May 9, 1995
Recorded live at MIT, Class War: The Attack on Working People marks the third volume in the series of lectures bringing Noam Chomsky's words and vision to CD.
Corporations and their political allies wage an unrelenting class war against working people. Privatization, the market and level playing fields are the mantras of the day. CEOs tell workers to tighten their belts while their own wallets are bulging. Income inequality is more acute in the US than in any other industrialized country, even surpassing Britain. Glamorous Manhattan has disparities in wealth that exceed Guatemala. People are working longer hours, producing more and earning less. Wages have been stagnant or declining for more than twenty years. The ranks of the poor have mushroomed. Meanwhile profits are at unprecedented levels.
'Class War' is vintage Chomsky. His astute analyses provides excellent tools for self-defense. His commitment, involvement and accessibility are exemplary. It's no wonder that the New Statesman calls him "The conscience of the American people." Class War is essential listening for everyone interested in building a true democracy. Includes a question and answer session based on the Oklahoma Bombing.
From
AK Press Audio P.O. Box 40682
San Francisco, CA
94140-0682
Voice: 415.864.0892
Fax: 415.864.0893
Order this CD $12.98 - compact disc (ISBN 1 873176 92 9)
57 minutes - spoken word/politics - New Title
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audio from Class War
RealAudio requires the RealAudio 3.0 player. Get the ToolVox player.
Track ToolVox RealAudio 14.4 RealAudio 28.8
Play the entire disc (56 minutes) RealAudio 14.4 RealAudio 28.8
1. Intro by David Barsamian (2:28) ToolVox (44K) RealAudio 14.4 (142K) RealAudio 28.8 (271K)
2. Profits before People (1:28) ToolVox (28K) RealAudio 14.4 (89K) RealAudio 28.8 (172K)
3. Culture of Solidarity (3:39) ToolVox (68K) RealAudio 14.4 (220K) RealAudio 28.8 (421K)
4. Praise for Our Magnificence (2:53) ToolVox (54K) RealAudio 14.4 (174K) RealAudio 28.8 (334K)
5. The Undermining of Unions (2:53) ToolVox (54K) RealAudio 14.4 (175K) RealAudio 28.8 (334K)
6. Crime Pays ToolVox (37K) RealAudio 14.4 (120K) RealAudio 28.8 (230K)
7. Economy Up People Down (1:07) ToolVox (22K) RealAudio 14.4 (69K) RealAudio 28.8 (131K)
8. The Globalization of Production (3:35) ToolVox (66K) RealAudio 14.4 (217K) RealAudio 28.8 (413K)
9. Class War (4:06) ToolVox (76K) RealAudio 14.4 (249K) RealAudio 28.8 (473K)
10. Driving People from Defiance to Compliance (1:14) ToolVox (25K) RealAudio 14.4 (77K) RealAudio 28.8 (148K)
11. Technology as a Weapon (2:02) ToolVox (39K) RealAudio 14.4 (125K) RealAudio 28.8 (238K)
12. The Fortune 500: Unaccountable Private Power (5:51) ToolVox (103K) RealAudio 14.4 (340K) RealAudio 28.8 (646K)
13. Social Policy: Welfare for the Rich (6:40) ToolVox (122K) RealAudio 14.4 (402K) RealAudio 28.8 (766K)
14. Propaganda: Corporations Are Your Friends (5:42) ToolVox (105K) RealAudio 14.4 (345K) RealAudio 28.8 (657K)
15. Potential for Fasicsm (2:36) ToolVox (49K) RealAudio 14.4 (159K) RealAudio 28.8 (304K)
16. What Is to Be Done? (0:53) ToolVox (18K) RealAudio 14.4 (55K) RealAudio 28.8 (107K)
17. Oklahoma City and Anti-Politics (5:47) ToolVox (106K) RealAudio 14.4 (350K) RealAudio 28.8 (665K)
Noam Chomsky
If it was Montbiot we were talking about...
28.03.2004 15:22
Compare that to the defence of Chomsky on this thread. IMO I don't see anything wrong with either person, as humans, you are entitled to disagree with some of what they have to say.
Tom A
missing the point
28.03.2004 18:38
The Zerzan article doesn't falsify what he's said, or smear him. I've read a lot of Chomsky, believe me, and he certainly never calls himself an Anarchist. He may be influenced by it, but that's not the same thing. Remember the 'Anarchists' in Spain in the the Revolution that joined the government? That article is a serious, though brief, critique. If needs be, respond to it, don't throw mud around.
As for Zerzan, '*' presumably hasn't read a lot of his work, if she/he had it'd be clear that Zerzan is every bit as much the intellectual as Chomsky is. To label Zerzan as a 'fascist' is politically illiterate and fucking stupid. We all know who the fascists are, don't label your own comrades with it. And I've never read anything justifying genocide in any of Zerzan's writings. That's a plain falsehood and a smear.
He's certainly not 'anti-socialist', though he is critical of socialists, as anyone should be after the history of the last 100 years. Christ, even Blair calls himself a socialist, so maybe that makes me 'anti-socialist'?
Krop, I don't have a league table of people in the movement who are 'most useful' to overthrow power, as that kind of thinking is everything I'm against. Cult of personality again, methinks. Again, someone who can't be bothered to do the reading.
What troubles me is this 'romance' that people have for Chomsky, almost as if it's not possible to criticise him. I have a lot of time for a fair amount of his work (not the linguistics I hasten to add), but that doesn't mean I'm open to different views on him. He is not a god - 'no gods, no masters'.
xrichx
...
28.03.2004 19:45
Chomsky is very good at what he does, which is to analyse and expose the power structures of Western Imperialism, and unravel the complex web of media deception. And that is very valuable, because it acts as a tool for those of us who may not want to do that, and may want to be more direct, like Che Guevara. But Che had the works of various socialist intellectuals as HIS inspiration, and was able to transform theory into action, and that was the role HE took. We all play different roles in life, and simply because one man isn't all things to all men is no reason to diss him.
Chomsky is a very intelligent man, but he's not the leader of any revolution, nor does he purport to be. Mindlessly hating him is an unconstructive attitude. We learn what we can from each other, and if we see something that needs to be done, we do it, rather than complain that someone else is not doing it. After all, what have you done that means I should respect you as much as I do Chomsky, or Che, or any other number of left-wing 'darlings'?
This is aimed at the people who simply attacked him for no reason, rather than the posters with genuine critiques, which I accept.
Hermes
disinformation
29.03.2004 11:29
all campaigners are middle class / old-left / boring
all ideas are rubbish
don't even try
stay home
obey
voice of reason
re:Monk's comment
12.09.2005 08:58
Sounds like you're mistaking a prophet for a messiah...
The fact is, people need first to learn the facts in order to know that change is necessary. That is the position of people like Chomsky (as I see it).
Encouraging us ask questions, encouraging us to research information before using someone else's opinions as our standpoint. This, I think, he does well.
If change can be made, it is up to us to decide what, and how to make those changes. One man can't change the world, and perhaps he isn't interested in doing so anyway.
In fact, if anarchy is his favoured mode of government (which he has said, but hasn't specified how - mostly, I think, because like all potential forms of government, it has its flaws, and is open to possibilities of corruption or failure and nearly impossible to prejudge for certain as to how it will work in practise), then his position in it is unerring - in an anarchic society you choose your mode of work based on what you are good at, and because that is what you enjoy.
Chomsky, I am guessing, would not make a good fighter (not that this is his standpoint, of course), but he does make a good historian.
My first paragraph stands here; you are criticising him based on something he has never purported to be.
Dell
dell
e-mail:
derekbrucelane@yahoo.co.uk