The viability of Noam Chomsky's political philosophy?

[fromderinside]

And how do you determine "the will of the majority"?

I think I am able to safely conclude the majority do not clamor for Chomskyite anarcho-socialism.

I have deduced this from near-complete lack of clamoring for it.

How about some evidence for your denigrative labeling. Got a source that hasn't a political nit to pick with Chomsky for that.

I find his entire approach to reason suspect because I just don't subscribe blank slates and common goods and misues of organic by one who is so Gouldish. I'm thinking of his approach to the organics of semantics of course. I find his social thinking to follow such threads as well.

 

[dismal]

I think I am able to safely conclude the majority do not clamor for Chomskyite anarcho-socialism.

I have deduced this from near-complete lack of clamoring for it.

How about some evidence for your denigrative labeling. Got a source that hasn't a political nit to pick with Chomsky for that.

I find his entire approach to reason suspect because I just don't subscribe blank slates and common goods and misues of organic by one who is so Gouldish. I'm thinking of his approach to the organics of semantics of course. I find his social thinking to follow such threads as well.

Um, I was going from the quote in the OP, which I understand is supposed to be from Chomsky:

a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist

I don't understand your problem with my label or why you assume it's any more "denigrative" than the ones Chomsky himself uses.

 

[J842P]

He was just being ironic. There is no "decentralized government" and probably never will be. It doesn't work.

Wasn't feudalism a form of decentralized government -- small, self-contained, insular communities with little intercourse with the outside world?

Would not Iroquois Confederacy be another example?

 

[untermensche]

And how do you determine "the will of the majority"?

I think I am able to safely conclude the majority do not clamor for Chomskyite anarcho-socialism.

I have deduced this from near-complete lack of clamoring for it.

Fist of all this is no argument for or against anything.

But it is true, most people trapped in capitalist systems are too busy taking care of the needs of the opulent minority to even think about something better.

What distressed people do or don't do is hardly a measure of what is best.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think I am able to safely conclude the majority do not clamor for Chomskyite anarcho-socialism.

I have deduced this from near-complete lack of clamoring for it.

Fist of all this is no argument for or against anything.

But it is true, most people trapped in capitalist systems are too busy taking care of the needs of the opulent minority to even think about something better.

What distressed people do or don't do is hardly a measure of what is best.

Why don't you do some math to back this up.

Don't look at the percent of wealth they have, that proves nothing. Look at what they spend--I don't think it's that large a chunk of our economy.

 

[fromderinside]

How about some evidence for your denigrative labeling. Got a source that hasn't a political nit to pick with Chomsky for that.

I find his entire approach to reason suspect because I just don't subscribe blank slates and common goods and misuses of organic by one who is so Gouldish. I'm thinking of his approach to the organics of semantics of course. I find his social thinking to follow such threads as well.

Um, I was going from the quote in the OP, which I understand is supposed to be from Chomsky:

a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist

I don't understand your problem with my label or why you assume it's any more "denigrative" than the ones Chomsky himself uses.

Rule 21. Never pay attention a complaint from any who by any sign claims to be on the inside because he's setting you up.

Rule 23. Only authors can describe their personalities label terms. Others must steer clear of any such labels since the politically correct ones will shoot them with piss ant stuff.

 

[untermensche]

Fist of all this is no argument for or against anything.

But it is true, most people trapped in capitalist systems are too busy taking care of the needs of the opulent minority to even think about something better.

What distressed people do or don't do is hardly a measure of what is best.

Why don't you do some math to back this up.

Don't look at the percent of wealth they have, that proves nothing. Look at what they spend--I don't think it's that large a chunk of our economy.

What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You combine a third rate education and a rat race and there is little time or inclination to think about something better.

That doesn't mean in any way people in general wouldn't be much happier with something better. They just don't see it or have a way to experience it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Wasn't feudalism a form of decentralized government -- small, self-contained, insular communities with little intercourse with the outside world?

Would not Iroquois Confederacy be another example?

Yea, and what happened to the Iroquois?

 

[Deepak]

Would not Iroquois Confederacy be another example?

Yea, and what happened to the Iroquois?

The same that happened to the Spaniards and the Minerva Reefs. Next time I think the should print more pamphlets on the non-aggression principle or something.

 

[untermensche]

Would not Iroquois Confederacy be another example?

Yea, and what happened to the Iroquois?

The same thing that happens to every society eventually.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, and what happened to the Iroquois?

The same that happened to the Spaniards and the Minerva Reefs. Next time I think the should print more pamphlets on the non-aggression principle or something.

The Iroquois were very war like and expansive. The belief that Indians lived a simple peaceful life until the White Man came around is sadly false.

 

[Deepak]

The same that happened to the Spaniards and the Minerva Reefs. Next time I think the should print more pamphlets on the non-aggression principle or something.

The Iroquois were very war like and expansive. The belief that Indians lived a simple peaceful life until the White Man came around is sadly false.

I've played enough Civilization to know that

It was more a poke at the libertarian idealists than referencing the Iroquois.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Iroquois were very war like and expansive. The belief that Indians lived a simple peaceful life until the White Man came around is sadly false.

I've played enough Civilization to know that

It was more a poke at the libertarian idealists than referencing the Iroquois.

The greatest PC game of all time! Good poke!

 

[dismal]

Um, I was going from the quote in the OP, which I understand is supposed to be from Chomsky:

a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist

I don't understand your problem with my label or why you assume it's any more "denigrative" than the ones Chomsky himself uses.

Rule 21. Never pay attention a complaint from any who by any sign claims to be on the inside because he's setting you up.

Rule 23. Only authors can describe their personalities label terms. Others must steer clear of any such labels since the politically correct ones will shoot them with piss ant stuff.

Well, OK then.

Still, I do not detect much clamoring for whatever this thing that must not be labeled is.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

http://www.theonion.com/article/exhausted-noam-chomsky-just-going-to-try-and-enjoy-17404

 

[untermensche]

http://www.theonion.com/article/exhausted-noam-chomsky-just-going-to-try-and-enjoy-17404

I don't imagine that is too far off.

I don't think the man is able to get these things out of his mind. It is an obsession, but one that millions benefit from.

 

[lpetrich]

I'm not impressed. Noam Chomsky proposes essentially a society of virtuous anarchists. He does not seem to have concerned himself with actually starting his kind of society, however.

 

[dismal]

I'm not impressed. Noam Chomsky proposes essentially a society of virtuous anarchists. He does not seem to have concerned himself with actually starting his kind of society, however.

To be fair, most utopian anarchists are content to start the ball rolling with some heavy handed fascism. Then when the unbelievers have been culled and everyone's mind is right the benevolent fascists just walk away.

 

[Togo]

Still, I do not detect much clamoring for whatever this thing that must not be labeled is.

Most political policy is like that. There's very little clamouring for the principle of smaller government, despite it being regular battle cry of the right. Chomsky's ideas are more a political notion than a populist one. It's been very influential on the left though.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Personally, I think he's a insufferable twit with an over inflated ego and over exaggerated intellect.