• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Great Leader of the Left

Good4Nothin

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
13,199
Reaction score
2,896
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Noam Chomsky is considered to be a great intellectual and a leader of the political left.

How did that happen? I have my opinion, and I read a lot of what he wrote.

First, Chomsky is a linguistics professor at MIT, not a political scientist. He got kind of side tracked at some point.

In the mid 20th century, Chomsky became known as a great linguist for pointing out the fact that human beings seem programmed to learn a human language. It is more than just being taught or hearing a language spoken when you're young. The ability to learn a human language is inborn.

Well ok. That seems very obvious to me. But there were psychologists around at the time who denied it. Chomsky is a good writer and he trashed the behaviorist theory that language is entirely a matter of learning.

Good work. Instant mega fame (within the academic world. You would not have seen Chomsky on a TV show).

Chomsky also had one or two good ideas regarding linguistics. And a lot of bad ideas. Not everyone got on his boat, but he had plenty of worshiping followers.

And next thing you know, he's writing about politics. And the assumption is that he's a great genius therefore whatever he says about politics has to be true. Really, there are people who say this about him. Maybe even some of you here.

What is Chomsky's political writing like? I thought a lot of it was interesting. Amazing how many horrible things the USA had done during the Cold War. The USSR also.

Chomsky is very good at digging up all that stuff. But what are we supposed to do about it? Chomsky never has, as far as I know, any kind of practical ideas. He thinks people should be free of oppression, and if we got rid of the evil rulers we'd all be happy and free and everyone would get along great.

Chomsky never met my relatives, obviously.

So that's your great leader of the left. Most people who admire him and quote him have no idea what his philosophy actually is.

Kind of similar to Marx, I guess. The Marxist revolutionaries did their best to follow his ideas perfectly. Uh oh. There were no practical ideas. After you kill the rich, what next?
 
Chomsky is not a politician or anything, he's an activist and historian, as far as politics goes.

Chomsky is also a bit fringe, in terms of his actual political ideology, he's essentially an anarchist. That's not largely popular with anyone over the age of 16.

His insight and writing on subjects of history is often really good, and he is one of the few big voices that call out the media for it's part in supporting war crimes for the sake of profit. I've never really been a huge fan of his, although, I do align much more closely with him than many other voices in the political world.
 
nekrodev said:
Chomsky is not a politician or anything, he's an activist and historian, as far as politics goes.

Chomsky is also a bit fringe, in terms of his actual political ideology, he's essentially an anarchist. That's not largely popular with anyone over the age of 16.

His insight and writing on subjects of history is often really good, and he is one of the few big voices that call out the media for it's part in supporting war crimes for the sake of profit. I've never really been a huge fan of his, although, I do align much more closely with him than many other voices in the political world.
Click to expand...

He also indulged in Khmer Rouge apologism.
 
nekrodev said:
Chomsky is not a politician or anything, he's an activist and historian, as far as politics goes.

Chomsky is also a bit fringe, in terms of his actual political ideology, he's essentially an anarchist. That's not largely popular with anyone over the age of 16.

His insight and writing on subjects of history is often really good, and he is one of the few big voices that call out the media for it's part in supporting war crimes for the sake of profit. I've never really been a huge fan of his, although, I do align much more closely with him than many other voices in the political world.
Click to expand...

It's fine to criticize our society, and he is good at it. But he should not be thought of as anything more than a critic.

But people do take him seriously, and he is more influential than you think. Many leftists think that getting rid of the greedy bad guys will solve all problems. The rest of humanity will work cooperatively to build a fair and prosperous society. Yeah look how that turned out for the Marxists.
 
No, not really

For one thing, his contribution to linguistics was much more than merely arguing that language development was innate in humans. He also formulated the rules which generated grammars. His work has been critical to the development of AI

While he has been at the forefront of some political issues, he has never been a political leader. He is an intellectual, and like many intellectuals, he is more of an influencer than a leader. For example, the book he co-authored, The Manufacturing of Consent, continues to inform the beliefs of millions of all political persuasions, including right wingers, even if they don't realize it.

As far as his political philosophy goes, it defies labels. It has been described, by various people, as Socialist-libertarianism and Anarcho-syndicalist. The small number of people who subscribe to these ideologies shows how little of a leader he is.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Noam Chomsky is considered to be a great intellectual and a leader of the political left.

How did that happen? I have my opinion, and I read a lot of what he wrote.

First, Chomsky is a linguistics professor at MIT, not a political scientist. He got kind of side tracked at some point.

In the mid 20th century, Chomsky became known as a great linguist for pointing out the fact that human beings seem programmed to learn a human language. It is more than just being taught or hearing a language spoken when you're young. The ability to learn a human language is inborn.

Well ok. That seems very obvious to me. But there were psychologists around at the time who denied it. Chomsky is a good writer and he trashed the behaviorist theory that language is entirely a matter of learning.

Good work. Instant mega fame (within the academic world. You would not have seen Chomsky on a TV show).

Chomsky also had one or two good ideas regarding linguistics. And a lot of bad ideas. Not everyone got on his boat, but he had plenty of worshiping followers.

And next thing you know, he's writing about politics. And the assumption is that he's a great genius therefore whatever he says about politics has to be true. Really, there are people who say this about him. Maybe even some of you here.

What is Chomsky's political writing like? I thought a lot of it was interesting. Amazing how many horrible things the USA had done during the Cold War. The USSR also.

Chomsky is very good at digging up all that stuff. But what are we supposed to do about it? Chomsky never has, as far as I know, any kind of practical ideas. He thinks people should be free of oppression, and if we got rid of the evil rulers we'd all be happy and free and everyone would get along great.

Chomsky never met my relatives, obviously.

So that's your great leader of the left. Most people who admire him and quote him have no idea what his philosophy actually is.

Kind of similar to Marx, I guess. The Marxist revolutionaries did their best to follow his ideas perfectly. Uh oh. There were no practical ideas. After you kill the rich, what next?
Click to expand...
This reads like someone who is utterly unfamiliar with the Left. Chomsky is a Left Libertarian - Anarcho Syndicalist. Isn't the critique of most Right Wingers, that Leftism is all about total State Control? Chomsky is a great leader of the Left, within a particular faction, but there are other segments of the Left which regard his thinking as anathema or dangerously wrongheaded.

This kind of laziness of formulating a hypothesis is much of the reason for the decline in today's discourse.
 
Good for nuthin' thread
 
sangha said:
No, not really

For one thing, his contribution to linguistics was much more than merely arguing that language development was innate in humans. He also formulated the rules which generated grammars. His work has been critical to the development of AI

While he has been at the forefront of some political issues, he has never been a political leader. He is an intellectual, and like many intellectuals, he is more of an influencer than a leader. For example, the book he co-authored, The Manufacturing of Consent, continues to inform the beliefs of millions of all political persuasions, including right wingers, even if they don't realize it.

As far as his political philosophy goes, it defies labels. It has been described, by various people, as Socialist-libertarianism and Anarcho-syndicalist. The small number of people who subscribe to these ideologies shows how little of a leader he is.
Click to expand...

Chomsky's contributions to linguistics have some limited use, but he caused as much or more harm to the field. He forcefully kept down all other schools of linguistics.

And if it's true that he doesn't have many followers, I'm glad to hear that. But that has not been my impression. I very often see him quoted by leftists.
 
Good4Nothin said:
It's fine to criticize our society, and he is good at it. But he should not be thought of as anything more than a critic.

But people do take him seriously, and he is more influential than you think. Many leftists think that getting rid of the greedy bad guys will solve all problems. The rest of humanity will work cooperatively to build a fair and prosperous society. Yeah look how that turned out for the Marxists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely agree that his political leaning is far too utopian. It's the kind of thing I would have liked when I was a 13 or 14, maybe, but not once I was old enough to vote. Human nature just doesn't allow for that kind of thing on any large scale.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for controlling markets enough to make sure that a handful of people aren't doing well while everyone else suffers. That's not nearly as fringe or uncommon as conservatives would like to pretend.
 
TrueScotsman said:
This reads like someone who is utterly unfamiliar with the Left. Chomsky is a Left Libertarian - Anarcho Syndicalist. Isn't the critique of most Right Wingers, that Leftism is all about total State Control? Chomsky is a great leader of the Left, within a particular faction, but there are other segments of the Left which regard his thinking as anathema or dangerously wrongheaded.

This kind of laziness of formulating a hypothesis is much of the reason for the decline in today's discourse.
Click to expand...

Chomsky is self-contradictory and his ideas are naive. I explained all that.
 
Good4Nothin said:
It's fine to criticize our society, and he is good at it. But he should not be thought of as anything more than a critic.

But people do take him seriously, and he is more influential than you think. Many leftists think that getting rid of the greedy bad guys will solve all problems. The rest of humanity will work cooperatively to build a fair and prosperous society. Yeah look how that turned out for the Marxists.
Click to expand...

Just have to push back on a small point.

Anarchism and Marxism are not equal. Chomsky is mostly considered an anarcho-syndicalist. Which if we look back at history, they would be considered opponents of Marxists. The main difference that was a deal breaker for Marxists and Anarchists is that Marxists believe in preserving the state post-Revolution and Anarchists believe in abolishing the state right away.

The followers of Bakunin who were critics of Marxism, would seem to be proven right. Since during the 20th century the spread of Marxism led to authoritarian communism, rather than the just and free society which was a goal of both camps. Now, who knows if anarchism would have ever been able to actualize itself into a viable organizing principle for society. But, we do not have decent evidence from history since the Marxists won the day.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Chomsky is self-contradictory and his ideas are naive. I explained all that.
Click to expand...
Yawn, your OP was largely content-less and what was said was so vague and ill defined that it can simply be dismissed as a person unfamiliar with his work.
 
Winston said:
Just have to push back on a small point.

Anarchism and Marxism are not equal. Chomsky is mostly considered an anarcho-syndicalist. Which if we look back at history, they would be considered opponents of Marxists. The main difference that was a deal breaker for Marxists and Anarchists is that Marxists believe in preserving the state post-Revolution and Anarchists believe in abolishing the state right away.

The followers of Bakunin who were critics of Marxism, would seem to be proven right. Since during the 20th century the spread of Marxism led to authoritarian communism, rather than the just and free society which was a goal of both camps. Now, who knows if anarchism would have ever been able to actualize itself into a viable organizing principle for society. But, we do not have decent evidence from history since the Marxists won the day.
Click to expand...

Um listen. Imagine (like the song) that we got rid of the evil greedy corrupt rulers. A blank slate, perfect. Ready to start building our glorious government-free society.

Ok, now imagine any situation where human beings are cooperating on a big task. There is no need for a boss, right? No one needs to provide direction. Because, obviously, people just go ahead and do what they are supposed to do. And they always know what they are supposed to do. And the work is always shared fairly.

I think what may have inspired all the different versions of socialism was the observations of primitive tribes by anthropologists. Tribe members do cooperate harmoniously with very little supervision. They just know what to do.

BUT WAIT. Those primitive people have been doing the same things for hundreds or thousands of years. Their traditions tell them exactly what to do. They have no freedom.

And furthermore, primitive tribes are always small groups. You would never find thousands, let alone millions, of people in one tribe.

Our modern society cannot do what primitive tribes do. We do not have traditions telling us exactly what to do. And heck we would not tolerate that for a minute. We expect to have some kind of freedom.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Yawn, your OP was largely content-less and what was said was so vague and ill defined that it can simply be dismissed as a person unfamiliar with his work.
Click to expand...

Oh you just think I don't worship Chomsky as a great intellectual leader. Right, I don't.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Um listen. Imagine (like the song) that we got rid of the evil greedy corrupt rulers. A blank slate, perfect. Ready to start building our glorious government-free society.

Ok, now imagine any situation where human beings are cooperating on a big task. There is no need for a boss, right? No one needs to provide direction. Because, obviously, people just go ahead and do what they are supposed to do. And they always know what they are supposed to do. And the work is always shared fairly.

I think what may have inspired all the different versions of socialism was the observations of primitive tribes by anthropologists. Tribe members do cooperate harmoniously with very little supervision. They just know what to do.

BUT WAIT. Those primitive people have been doing the same things for hundreds or thousands of years. Their traditions tell them exactly what to do. They have no freedom.

And furthermore, primitive tribes are always small groups. You would never find thousands, let alone millions, of people in one tribe.

Our modern society cannot do what primitive tribes do. We do not have traditions telling us exactly what to do. And heck we would not tolerate that for a minute. We expect to have some kind of freedom.
Click to expand...

What role does democracy play in an anarchic society? Just curious if you know the answer.

I've never heard an anarchist cite a tribal community as an end goal. (those communities are usually hierarchical anyway.) could you quote a reference to tribal community from an anarchist thinker? (Perhaps Godwin, Bakunin, Proudhon, or Kropotkin)
 
Winston said:
What role does democracy play in an anarchic society? Just curious if you know the answer.

I've never heard an anarchist cite a tribal community as an end goal. (those communities are usually hierarchical anyway.) could you quote a reference to tribal community from an anarchist thinker? (Perhaps Godwin, Bakunin, Proudhon, or Kropotkin)
Click to expand...

It's plainly obvious he hasn't done any of his homework. Why go through the work of exposing him further?
 
TrueScotsman said:
It's plainly obvious he hasn't done any of his homework. Why go through the work of exposing him further?
Click to expand...

'Cause this is one of my favorite topics. :mrgreen:
 
Winston said:
'Cause this is one of my favorite topics. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I can get that, there is no one left to on the other side who can discuss my favorite topics anymore. Conservatives have departed from political philosophy it seems.
 
TrueScotsman said:
I can get that, there is no one left to on the other side who can discuss my favorite topics anymore. Conservatives have departed from political philosophy it seems.
Click to expand...

When you have intellectuals on the right like Ben Shapiro who basically pushes the same tired Republicanism spoken 3x faster, yes, I very much agree.
 
I don't know that "conservative intellectuals" were ever a thing, but they definitely aren't now. just reality denying, outrage-addicted morons who care more about what half a dozen purple-haired kids on a college campus do than what the President or members of Congress do.

I think one could definitely be an intellectual and speak about / argue for some conservative economic policies, but nothing that would even remotely resemble the modern Republican party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom