Hello all; this is my first post on the Mises forums.
I’ve read Chomsky’s “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”, his discussion of the coroporate media in “Understanding Power: The Essential Chomsky”, and am currently reading “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media”, co-authored with Ed S. Herman, and I was wondering what people on these forums think of Chomsky’s analysis of the mass media? Obviously the internet makes it harder to control and “filter” the news, but when applied to, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post, do you believe that it is a valid model? Only, I know that the market anarchists and libertarians on here will strongly objects to Chomsky’s economics, but his criticisms of American foreign policy and the corporate mass media seems to bridge the ideological gulf between his left-anarchism and your right-anarchism (apologies is you dislike the term, only market anarchism includes left-wing ideologies as well, so I deemed it inappropriate in this context.)
By “left-anarchism” I mean the people who identify/identified themselves as left-wing e.g. anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, collectivist anarchists and mutualists. By “right-anarchism” I mean anarcho-capitalism, which is what I meant to write in the first place.
Well I would confer onto you the idea that capitalism is actually a leftist ideology. Frederich Bastiat sat on the left side of the French assembly with Proudhon. The right is heriarchical, reactionary and oppressive in trying to sustain a system of monarchs and mercentalists. Capitalism is about free trade and free buying/selling.
There is no left and right. Anyone who calls themselves a left or right libertarian is being disingenuous.
The only time I refer to myself as right, is so I can identify myself as separate from the ideologically collectivist libertarians who call themselves left-libertarians.
Proudhon was an anti-Semite who endorsed violence against Jews. He is a terrible icon for freedom, and anyone who considers him as a libertarian is badly mislead. Unfortunately, this is about 75% of those who claim to be market anarchists from what I have seen online.
As I understand it, Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Also, from my reading, I gather that Chomsky is strongly opposed to any kind of utilitarian communitarianism, or “mob rule”, which is what many people associate collectivism with. If you read his stuff about negative and postive liberty, it’s pretty clear that he is opposed to violence and coercion in the name of “the collective”.
Obviously there are unbridgeable ideological gulfs between, say, Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalism and the anarcho-capitalism of these forum posters, but I don’t see why his critiques of the media and US foreign policy necessarily tie into any ideologicals system. Neoconservatives or imperialists may hate them, but I’m pretty sure that modern liberals, conservatives, all kinds of libertarians etc can agree with his material on these topics.
Question: You are against endorsement of violence yet ambivelant towards the ‘isms’ I often speak of? Could it be true? Could my weeks of argument swayed you!? Be still my beating heart! [:P]
Well you follow Block right? So libertarians are, according to Block, individuals who follow the NAP. Have you enriched your definition of libertarianism?
Not too long ago we were talking about racism, sexism, xenophobia etc in my ‘Cybernetic Brains and the march towards egalitarianism’ During that discussion I got the feeling that you are ambivelant to those ‘social woes’ and now you are sayng icons of freedom shouldn’t endorse violence.
I just liked his name better. As for my animated avatar, I’m an animated individual [:)]
Do you often recognize the proponents of different-than-your-ideology ideologies as disingenuous or dishonest or insincere?
This is very simple: The reason that we “libertarians” reject collectivism is because we know that collectivism does imply coercion. The reason that other “libertarians” do not reject collectivism is because they believe that collectivism does not imply coercion.
No need to be hostile. I merely meant it as an individual who influences you.
Well the market isn’t working for individuals who experience racism, sexism and xenophobia.
Did you not say that Proudhon serves as a poor icon for freedom merely because he endorsed violence against Jews. Yet you say that social woes don’t exist where the market works. Anti-Semitism is a social woe, so you must either concede that just because Proudhon was an anti-semite doesn’t make him a poor icon for freedom or that the market cannot work due to anti-semitism and if that is true then why can’t it also be applied to racism or sexism?
Well I like it and as far as I know it does not transgress any rules on this forum.
cultural preference and violent inclination are two different things. if you must know most people in the world and america are basicly anti-semites, yet they pose no treat or even plan initiate violence against jews
ive talked to people from wide ranging backgrounds. ghetto blacks, puerto ricans, yuppie whites, low-mid class americans, arabs, italians. irish, russians, carribean immigrants. they all basicly believe that jews own america and the world