I’m aware of his terrible views on Economics. Its very disappointing, for an intellectual figure I admire so much.
I don’t get it, he’s correct about that. He advocates a non-intervention foreign policy like Ron Paul.
I’ve never read much of chomsky’s anti-war views but if he is anti most wars then that’s at least something.
I don’t really see him as an anarchist just because of the things he’s said.He seems a statist leftist who plays at anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky#Political_views
“As regards support for condemnation of terrorism, Chomsky opines that terrorism (and violence/authority in general) is generally bad and can only be justified in those cases where it is clear that greater terrorism (or violence, or abuse of authority) is thus avoided. In a debate on the legitimacy of political violence in 1967, Chomsky argued that the “terror” of the Vietnam National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) was not justified, but that terror could in theory be justified under certain circumstances:
“I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this— and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified. But, as I said before, I don’t think it was the use of terror that led to the successes that were achieved”.[4]”
“In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are “wage slaves” or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation’s populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both “rewarding in itself” and “socially useful.” Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone”
my questions to chomsky and others like him are as follows:-
how is working for a wage ,slavery?
why would people want to work without pay?
how will the work be made rewarding?
who would distribute work?
if people work for these distributers ,aren’t they then workers working under owners which assumes authority and hierarchy?
no authoritarian institutions? so no laws/ courts /police/army/ judges?
how would a society like that function?
how would you prevent such institutions arising?
"Chomsky is scathing in his opposition to the view that anarchism is inconsistent with support for ‘welfare state’ measures, stating in part that
One can, of course, take the position that we don’t care about the problems people face today, and want to think about a possible tomorrow. OK, but then don’t pretend to have any interest in human beings and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other privileged people. Or one can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow – the classical anarchist position, quite different from the slogans in the question. That’s exactly right, and it leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. That is not a sufficient condition for organizing for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive"
http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2003_02/loberfeld-chomsky.html - this link debunks chomsky’s supposed anarchism.
I find his media theories vaguely interesting and I’d like to see them applied in a libertarian fashion.
I don’t know much about his linguistics.Hard to say whether the inclination to language is inborn (not the ability to use it ) or whether it comes from experience.
"
Before dealing with the Serbs in depth, let us focus a bit more on the pro-war anti-war movement people whom Harry Elmer Barnes bitterly used to call “the pro-war pacifists.” This gang has just written an open letter to the UN…
But first let us name these traitorous ex-anti-warriors, now shilling for global military intervention on behalf of the Muslim government. The signatories include:…Noam Chomsky"
This is untrue.
I’ve got to hand it to Mr. Chomsky, he was one of the main drivers of my pursuit of personal liberation in my politically formative years.
Chomsky isn’t really a libertarian, in my opinion. He’s all for state control when it’s for stuff he likes. Not even necessarily stuff that is pro-freedom or for the protection of lives, but simply stuff he likes and then he may sometimes try to spin it as if it protects freedom. Like the whole thing about saying we have some control over politicians with voting but we have zero control over companies (lolz, I guess he forgot about the whole part where consumers can choose who to purchase stuff from or even if they wanna give a go at being self-sufficient if they happen to hate all companies).
He’s a shill, basically. He’s not what I consider an anarchist or even libertarian. He simply happens to line up sometimes on civil liberties and foreign policy, and of course the mass media (although I don’t think the media is as bad as he makes it out to be…in fact I actually don’t think it’s very bad at all. They do what they do in order to get ratings. I do think it MIGHT be a little bad to have most of it controlled by a few companies, but I don’t think they go out of their way to manage what people hear based on some central plan other than to get more ratings).
He’s a socialist that practices partisan hackery(not necessarily political parties, but in this case acting on behalf of collectivism). Like someone else said, he’s just less of a troll than Krugman, but that’s not saying much.
Chomsky is little more than a state apologist. Just listen to his proposals. He’s horribly wrong on economics, which unfortunately means he doesn’t seem to understand cause-and-effect as well as he could. Thus he calls for growing state control over people’s lives, in the hopes that it will result in less control over people’s lives.