So I’ve seen Chomsky argue that the progress we’ve seen in the social field is simply human beings getting closer to our innate moral nature. He often uses examples of the proliferation of homosexuality and feminism into the social strata as evidence of this progress and a finding of our true natures. Famously in his debate with Foucault he made the case that it was only moral to cause a revolution if the means were met to a just end rather than some arbitrary culture. In regards to moral relativism he appears to reject that the concept has value because culture starts from specific points rather than arbitrary values. While he acknowledges that two competing beliefs can be expressed by the same society (America does this paradoxically all the time) he never mentions that these supposed innate moral characteristics that are so new and expressed by progressivism only now for the first time exist under capitalism and that they’re only made available through the social cohesion, wealth, and leisure created by the same system that’s destroying the planet and imperialist in the third world. This seems like an inconsistency in his thinking. Does any of his literature address this?
Chomsky
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
You could try reading one of the 70,000 "books" he publishes that are actually just transcripts of his lectures put together by other people so he can keep hiding his money in off-shore tax shelters.
Chomsky is basically only useful as a cataloguer of the sins of oligarchs, and even then he's incredibly weak on advocating any sort of praxis.
He seems to justify his stance as someone willing to use violence as a method to secure human happiness and justice with these high moral principles that strike me as abstract. His praxis is essentially civil disobedience as far as I can tell which as we’ve seen is largely ineffectual. The bulk of his books is the problem here as I’d love to actually read him to understand his logic about this. It seems like nobody actually reads Chomsky and as far as I can tell he has no central or important works to his name. If there’s some evidence of him offshoring his money i’d Love to see that, after decades of speaking engagements and book sales I imagine his net worth is high.
i poo pooed my diaper, i am very bad boy. CUT OFF MY PEE PEE DADDY, I WANNA BE YOUR DAUGHTER NOW!!!!!
Chomsky is what you get when you mix Anglo-American Progressivism and Reform Judaism. Toxic!
I honestly have no idea what your post here means. Being the resident leftie of the board I would hope you’d respond, I have no interest in totally PWNing Chomsky. I just legitimately want a better understanding of how he thinks and what his logic is. If there’s a book of his you’d recommend I’d read it and if you don’t like Chomsky I’d love to hear why. I post here daily and interact with you all the time so I’d hope that you could give something a little more insightful here. Also does anyone happen to know about the metadata for this board? I’d love to know the activity of the core group of its users and how much they interact. I don’t know if gookmoot keeps that private or if there’s a way some of you wizards can see that but it would be wholly interesting.
His ideas do seem to be predicted on those things, what aspects do you find the most toxic user?
What's the track record of this type of thinking? Progressivism + Reform Judaism leads to a nationwide chimpout every 60 +/-10 years starting in Massachusetts when the elite are suddenly possessed by Wokeness.
Is that really in Massachusetts? One of their universities?
Well I’m certainly a critic of idpol wokeness but frankly Chomsky’s relevance seems to have peaked before our modern conception of progressive idpol. It’s obvious he’s highly radicalized and ok with social violence and that that same way of thinking has echoes in Mao and Stalin (as far as I can tell) but I’m curious what you mean by Reform Judaism. Is that just a way of saying modernized Jew? Like someone that isn’t orthodox and emphasizes their tribal tendencies but rather someone the projects outwardly? I don’t believe there’s credence to the JQ if that’s where you’re going with this but for the sake of conversation I’d be willing to entertain whatever answer you give me. And please try to relate it specifically to Chomsky rather than a larger, and I would content more abstract, idea about social reform and progressive/enlightenment values.
It starts in Massachusetts and is usually directed at the South.
ex:
>American Revolution
Massachusetts mostly started this.
>Civil War
Massachusetts auto-radicalized over slavery and wanted blood while simultaneously not actually wanting anything to do with the blacks.
>early Progressivism
Massachusetts wanted to forcibly root out evil in society through social engineering, thus, basically, fuck the Constitution, we know better.
>60s
Massachusetts turns its crosshairs on the eternal Southerner once again while hilariously chimping out at forced busing in Boston.
>10s
Massachusetts experiences a wave of religious fervor over Obama, thus, modern Social Justice.
The same pattern is always there, performative "care" for marginal elements in society while not actually liking or wanting to associate with said elements.
Chomsky is a dinosaur who would be on the vanguard in 1960 but hasn't kept up with the times. Class politics has exhausted its usefulness as a pretext for expanding Progressive power.
MIT also famously worked with the government and other private military tech R&D departments to help fund and maintain the Vietnam war (when Chomsky rose to prominence) and many wars since. This is part of the paradoxical nature that he himself addressed.
I can say with some certainty that progressivism at large is indeed a pretext to expand liberalism and class power of the elites however that seems to be a separate issue from the intellectual life of the issue. The top elites don’t read Foucault or any philosophy really they just follow their base instructs for greed, which to me seems like a good critique of modern capitalism. What exactly do you mean about Massachusetts? Is there any real evidence that it’s some hub of intelligentsia for the upper class? Your examples seem to be happenstance more than anything especially considering it was an original colony. I’m open to hearing more about it but highly unconvinced.
>The top elites don’t read Foucault
They do. You have to think about how an intelligence agency would use thinkers like Foucault. Remember the CIA and assorted intel agencies de facto rule the US.
For this to be true Foucault would need some kind of social utility and usefulness for them and while he’s interesting I don’t think appeals to power explain society on their own and neither does Chomsky which was one of their major disagreements. Not everyone is a base materialistic person, people’s interior lives are spiritual and complex and their motivations are too. If you’re saying their reading of him is simply used as a method of control I don’t think I can agree. I’d be more willing to posit that Adornos ideas about media are more useful to them but the truth is most wealthy people don’t read nor are they influenced by niche things like this. To put it simply you’re giving them way too much credit and anyone that’s spent time with politicians, law enforcers, or government employees in general can see they’re middling intellectuals at best. What you’re saying is conspiratorial nonsense. I’m sure a few of them have read some of these thinkers but to say society is one big leftist conspiracy theory is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. Give me some evidence for this. It isn’t hard to intuit that the world is more or less organized chaotically and I think conspiratorial people like you are more afraid of that chaos than your grand narrative.
chomsky is fucking braindead
humans are innately chauvinist behaviorist-xenophobes, feminism is a paradox of whatever men allow women to do, idpol relies on the social capitol of "being nice" and the want to appear nice and is irrelevant outside of places that have HR departments
I don’t disagree with this analysis. What I noticed in the Chomsky/Foucault debate is that they were both talking past eachother where Foucault was emphasizing the point you’re making. This is a debate as old as time and always comes from the perspective of speakers who genuinely feel rationalism and cosmopolitanism are the way forward, and often dismiss or don’t even comment on other people’s desire for power and their way of thinking. Humanity allows for both kinds of people and it seems neither one is willing to concede this point as it detracts from their view of social models and how people behave. Considering their debate was abstract it strikes me more as a clash of egos espousing their individual worldview more than anything else. I don’t really know what Chomsky has to do with idpol other than the fact that he sometimes makes comments about the progress of various identities in society as an example of progress. He’s more concerned with state sanctioned violence and the ethics around that which if you ask me is a more pressing and noble thing to address than fashionable idpol policy.
Obviously his ideas on morality are coming from his theory of language as an innate biological facility instead of learned behaviour. Read his critique of Skinner:
marxists.org
Its come to my attention the vast majority of HR departments rely on figures by the SPLC in order to formulate their hiring policies and harassment documents. Even the FBI and some government agencies rely on them as the de facto measurement for any kind of extremism as the federal government has no real definition of a hate group. This is a legal loophole for both these enforcement agencies and the corporate managerial class to base their literature about society on. In case you were unaware the SPLC won some landmark cases against various groups like the KKK in decades past but now because of this they’re funded by both public and private donors. They had an endowment of over 300M$ last year and that’s not counting public support. There’s always some fundraisers for them, considering about 250 people work for them it’s easy to see it’s basically a money making venture. They have a vested interest in portraying society as extremely racist and sexist. They lost PO Boxes for hate groups that don’t exist to artificially inflate their numbers. They also have ties to all the tech companies and MasterCard that are pushing for social censure on their platforms, which is ironic considering that after so many lawsuits we can see they keep a large part of their wealth offshored in the Caymen Islands.
So he believes that morality is objective and this is why he has no problem passing such harsh judgment on people he views as immoral. Because it’s all obvious and derived from language so each individual should know better. If there’s any part of his theory that takes into account that this modern morality is a byproduct of wealth I’d like to see it. I think for him to admit that culture has a hand in morality is to lose his entire argument and worldview. We can only have this kind of progressivism under capitalism.
are you the last person to discover people who talk about "epidemic of X" are rent seeking ditch digging dodgers? what if I told you chomsky himself was a work dodger?
>I just legitimately want a better understanding of how he thinks and what his logic is.
I think chomsky just boils down "neoliberals gonna neolib". Forget communism. Forget fascism. You gotta get fat on that burger and die alone, and you better like it because thats what our unrestrained ego ultimately wants. Chomsky is more or less the left equivalent of Land. The observations are acute, perhaps, but not particularly helpful.
Actually my dear boy I’ve always been highly skeptical of most of these social studies fundraising organizations. It’s noteworthy how powerful and embedded this particular one is which is why i’m Pointing it out. As for Chomsky he’s quoted as saying the rich upper classes aren’t bourgeois if they simply talk about and side with the working class when asked why it’s only intellectuals that think or worry about the working class. Which I think you can make a case that we would need these people to protect and strive for a better society for people but this idea that they aren’t bourgeois is simply 100% cope. They desperately want to be seen as radical and part of the great and virtuous struggle but they never do an honest days work in their lives. As he put it “intellectual labor” is bullshit. This is strange considering he recognizes the need for people to do fulfilling work in order to be actualized.
I get this impression as well. This is why I’m so puzzled about his dismissal and hate towards someone like Sam Harris who has to be the biggest champion of cosmopolitanism right now. They’re both totally SCIENC IS AWESOME BRO type of guys and view society in terms of consistent progress. It makes me wonder if he’s just upset about his irrelevancy. VIETNAM IS OVER BRO.
theres an inherent dissonance/retardation with radicalism, "regular" people are as radical as the length of time until their next meal
because Harris skipped the whole "contributing" part that all the other published pop science authors like black science man, mystery meat gladwell, michio kaku etc and went straight to publishing overpriced toilet paper
So you’re saying because Harris doesn’t have academic acclaim or hasn’t spent as much time in academia that’s why Chom Chom is upset? That’s the most hyper boomer thing I’ve ever heard. Colleges are a joke now.
>This is why I’m so puzzled about his dismissal and hate towards someone like Sam Harris who has to be the biggest champion of cosmopolitanism right now.
The harris chomsky split is still on ideological line. Chomsky is religious essentialist (symbols! memes!), harris tries to bring quasi-right materialism. This is not helped by Harris often outright coming off as intellectually dishonest, a neoliberal who's not very good at gaslighting.
Just like most of the marxist descended left, Chomsky might be right in his disdain for Harris style neoliberals. But Chomsky is also "all the shit jobs will be done by robots, because we are humans and nice to each other, relax". He completely ignores structure of the matter, doesn't elaborate how exactly we'd realign our symbols to focus market forces in a way to arrive to star trek utopia - save for good ole dogmatism (language! religion!) we know is toothless when facing aggregate markets. Land, of course is just blackpill - "robots will take over and exterminate humanity" which is the opposite extreme - it tends to ignore irrational altruism and taking step back we know from history commonly happens following a collapse of society when things got way too speculative up in the clouds.
not to the people propping up the scam or are part of it
This is interesting, could you elaborate on religious essentialism and its juxtaposition to atheist materialism? Point taken about Harris being a neoliberal.
Lets burn the colleges to the ground fren.
the idiots who dont realize theyre in debutante day care are already on the verge of doing so
no they blame the capitalist class not the educators that pushed this on them since elementary school
>capitalist class and outsourced certification training are mutually exclusive
Religious essentialism is more or less "humanism pozzed as fuck" if we're talking about humans - Chomsky extends it to class and technology. When reading chomsky, one often gets the impression that technology is "inherently good" somehow.
The connection to religion is tentative: for chomskian left libertarianism to work at all, you'd need to brainwash majority of population with some sort of religious dogma in order to operate sub-optimal materialism. This is, in fact, quite frequent in tribal cultures, but unprecedented on mass scale, where market steamrolls over tribal altruism in favor of transactional relationships. Neoliberals (as well as Land) just admit with glee that we can't do much about that, and suggest to just go along.
One fun fact about Chomsky is that he can be interpreted as "just don't have global market, and do work which makes yourself happy. the economic nonsense will sort itself out, somehow". Sounds awfuly like picrel, but high technology kinda kept in the loop. Yet not generating globe scale supply chains necessary to support said high technology, huh?
Maybe teaching Marxism is simply a way for universities to justify their existence
Not really, blue collar workers are netting more than college graduates en masse. Sure, some specialized training is needed by and large to become part of the 1% generally but college educated people’s are more than happy to attack a working class actor that built their own trucking company for example over someone that’s running the financial systems we all live under. You might of been eight decades ago but colleges aren’t an open invitation to another class, they just brainwash kids into essentially attacking their fellow proletariat workers.
Chomsky=BITCH
>Chomsky is basically only useful as a cataloguer of the sins of oligarchs, and even then he's incredibly weak on advocating any sort of praxis.
Brutal
Im just here so I don't get fined
are you on the spectrum?
>happy to attack a working class actor
when did that happen
Depends what you mean by "college", really. Liberal arts major? Sure. But that's largely a meme, in most places such people are not even considered educated as they lack any marketable skill (short of professional bureaucracy).
When it comes to STEM and ivy league old money babies, that class is generally *far* above anything blue collar ($150k+).
>Chomsky is basically only useful as a cataloguer of the sins of oligarchs, and even then he's incredibly weak on advocating any sort of praxis.
I remember a interview he gave about Daniel Ellsberg who leaked pentagon papers. He admitted that even though he was a prominent supporter at this time he had no say because he was a cuck while Ellsberg was alpha.