Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

I addressed the issues you brought up and you have ignored all evidence that does not support your closed minded position.

You addressed nothing. You just started calling me names and deliberately misrepresenting my position.

E.g.

You want to believe America, democracy and free markets are bad. Why you want to believe these things is beyond my ability to comprehend.

You have made up your mind. Chomsky is your hero and you will not hear any evidence to the contrary

No, I've never said anything of the sort. You need to believe that's what I believe; you've set out a position that's not mine and are attacking it.

End of discussion

Fair enough, you've clearly run out of arguments some time back. That you need to declare yourself the 'winner' and run away now is not in the slightest bit surprising to me. You're perpetrating intellectual fraud.

Just one final thought though; perhaps Chomsky sells more books than you because he's a true academic and doesn't need to resort to attacking others becaue he lacks the capacity to make clear, reasoned and rational arguments. Like I say, just a thought...

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

You are a true believer

And you are not? Perhaps you would benefit from a study of Chomsky in applied linguistics and the Learning/ assimilation process. Actually, you definitely would. A certain irony there.

For no other reason than to illustrate that Chomskys politics are not as black and white as you believe, I'll throw in some quotes, all of which make some good sense imho. (I've already stated that, regardless of his political beliefs, Chomskys credentials as an important scholar are well established.)

"A lot of the people who call themselves Left I would regard as proto-fascists."

On Conservatism- "The political policies that are called conservative these days would appal any genuine conservative, if there were one around to be appalled. For example, the central policy of the Reagan Administration - which was supposed to be conservative - was to build up a powerful state. The state grew in power more under Reagan than in any peacetime period, even if you just measure it by state expenditures. The state intervention in the economy vastly increased. That's what the Pentagon system is, in fact; it's the creation of a state-guaranteed market and subsidy system for high-technology production." As a traditional Conservative, I strongly agree with this.

"There are no conservatives in the United States. The United States does not have a conservative tradition. The people who call themselves conservatives, like the Heritage Foundation or Gingrich, are believers in -- are radical statists. They believe in a powerful state, but a welfare state for the rich." Ditto

On the Capitalist state vs. democracy- "Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy."

On the Free Market- "No country, no business class, has ever been willing to subject itself to the free market, free market discipline. Free markets are for others. Like, the Third World is the Third World because they had free markets rammed down their throat. Meanwhile, the enlightened states, England, the United States, others, resorted to massive state intervention to protect private power, and still do." food for thought

But, heres one with a bit more raw meat for you to chew on-

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

Noam Chomsky - Wikiquote

Incidentally, Chmskys politics are not my own, but I find his critical thinking applied to politics to be, at it's best, challenging and stimulating.

Sabang

"Chomsky makes speeches as a Dissident. We don't come to hear him praise all that is good about Amerka, or Capitalism.”


So you agree with me, he is a propagandist or activist, not a scholar on political matters.

Take a look at that little blurb you cut and pasted. No references, no data, no use of empirical references, nothing but pure unsupported speculation. This is not the work of a scholar.

Chomsky is a political “dissent” and slams every aspect of America, yet offers no empirical evidence that his “way” works better. He focus on the negatives and misses so much of the great joy in the world.

Chomsky ignores the fact that HUNDREDS of millions of people have been lifted out of absolute poverty across Asia with the easing of socialistic rule (Which Chomsky had supported, even if he now tries to claim he did not). The threat of nuclear war has eased and there are so many other positive developments happening in our world. Yet, why is Chomsky so unwilling to acknowledge the positives and instead has become a bitter old man only focusing on the exisiting problems?

The leftist movement (The concept of Chomsky calling himself a conservative is absurd) for the last century has always had a focus on hatred, but at one time the movement also had some ideas. The ideas seem to have faded away and all that is left is the bitterness and hatred. Chomsky’s writing reflects the hatred and bitterness of today’s left.


He knows his audience and gives what his audience wants. He is exactly what he slams, he is a profit-seeking capitalist who claims capitalism is bad. He is a liar and a hypocrite.


And he is a hero to the left, which does not reflect well on the intellectual capacity or moral authority of the modern radical left.

“and obviously you believe that free markets work, when everybody else knows it doesn't.”

BF

Who is this everyone you are referring to?

Obviously anyone, and I mean anyone, who has made a study of the empirical economic evidence knows the vast majority (I am talking about over 99%) of studies that have been carried out by analysing data clearly show that markets work better than centrally planned (socialist) policies in creating economic growth and poverty reduction. .

But this is obvious to the intelligent non-scholars as well.

The Berlin Wall was not built to keep exploited workers of the West from streaming into the workers paradise found in Soviet controlled lands, the exact opposite is true.

Hundreds of thousand of North Koreas have been fleeing the “joys” of living in a society that does not believe in market economics to “suffer” in the land to the south where markets and prosperity reins.

More than a million Cubans have risked their lives to escape from the communist Utopia to live where markets rule.

But of course, you and Chomsky are smarter than all these people who have actually lived under socialist rule. You know what is best for others, although I am sure you, like Chomsky, are unwilling to live the life you advocate.

Hypocrites and idealists who refuse to acknowledge existing evidence.

BTW, I am actually now living in a socialist country, but one that is moving towards market economies. You can say I am a hypocrite for living in a society with a system I “disapprove” of, but I am here to help in the transition to a better life.

While either teaching or discussing economies, I have not had a single person who has lived under central planning make the claim that central planning works better than markets, even after hearing years of government propaganda.

Chomsky can fool those who know no other life how terrible American ideals, democracy and market-based economies are, but there are few who have lived without these values who believe him.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

So have all you Chomsky supporters ready to admit the error of your ways

It's a ways back in the thread, but no doubt you remember his being voted the worlds most important intellectual, and the most quoted man alive.

I've also told you that, whilst his politics are not my own, his exposes of what is really happening, or has happened, in various arenas such as Central America- often to a public reluctant or unwilling to believe- are Important. Yes, he is a dissident, and makes a special point of investigating US and Western abuses. Predictable that several don't like that, but you only need pick up a commercial newspaper to read what our reviled enemy of the day is doing bad.

I also find his political musings stimulating- I particularly like the way he exposes the semantic abuses of the new Right more adeptly than anyone else I can think of. Terms such as 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'.

He is an Important scholar, and an important dissenting voice. Whilst several in your (and my) society dislike him for his views, or exposes, he lives in safety in that society, and is free to have and express his views and findings. Thats important, too. So no point me making this personal against those US citizens that don't like him or appreciate his work.

If you fail to appreciate the Importance of Dissidence in general, and Chomskys work in particular, thats up to you, and frankly not really important. If however you advocate a society in which the likes of Chomsky should be silenced, that is important. I have no evidence that you do.

When it comes to Politics, and the nature of Power in general, I am definitely a cynic. I do not trust Politicians, their spin doctors or a compliant media to tell me the whole Truth- unless it suits them. History and current events prove my cynicism correct, repeatedly. Therein lies the importance of informed dissidence, and investigative journalism. It surprises, and slightly concerns me, how many people in our society are still quick to label any dissenting voice from the government of the day 'traitorous' or 'loonie'. In numbers, they are the dangerous ones- not Chomsky.

So don't expect me to continue debating the Importance of Noam Chomsky ad infinitum- it is already established, and I bore easily. Feel free though to tell us where he has been wrong where you can- this does not negate the importance of his body of work, no more than does the fact that Isaac Newton believed in alchemy negate the importance of his work. Who knows, I might even learn something, and you might too. Vapid right wing references to 'hating America' will not get you far in Issues though, outside of a predictable few.

^ You ask so many questions, but seem reluctant to hear the answers, why don't you read some of Chomsky's works yourself and find the answers you seek.
Maybe it will reinforce your belief or maybe it will open up new lines of thinking to you.
Even if you despise what he stands for it would be imprudent to not read his books, knowledge is power and to know the mind of your enemy is the greatest power of all.
I'm not too keen on those that fritter away our existence in the stock exchange, but that does not stop me reading Friedmans policies or the financial news to find out what they are up to.

Just a thought..

Chomsky is an American, who better to be critical of American politics than an American?
Who better to understand the culture and mindset of America than an American?

Yes he has a negative view of the American system,
but there are many more that would draw a positive conclusion to the same aspects that he highlights.

If you are an American shouldn't you be glad that one of your own citizens has the right,
and upholds those rights, to challenge the logic of the establishment?

If he was foreign he wouldn't have so much credibility and therein lies the problem for many of his critics,
he is American and he does know what he is talking about.

Many Americans assume the rest of the world has a negative image of them, and perhaps that is true in these times we live in, but many people respect the constitutional rights that Americans have and wish the same for themselves and their country.
It is sad that the country that lauds these rights is so reluctant to use them for anything other than law suits and rhetoric, America should stand for the values of Washington and Lincoln, but in many peoples eyes it now only stands for greed and death.

Chomsky is well regarded around the world and stands out as an American that is intelligent, objective and competent.
Surely then this man should be praised for his stance and his tenacity, his American spirit.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

So have all you Chomsky supporters ready to admit the error of your ways, or are you going to insult the messenger for exposing your hero in a way you can not defend?

Chomsky has written about and discussed numerous topics. They're complicated topics, where you can look at it from many angles. It's not all black or white. I don't agree with many of the things he says, but I agree with with many things he writes and talks about also. One topic in particular, is the media and how it's run.

This "for" or "against" Chomsky mentality is oversimplification.

Sabang

You seem an intelligent enough fellow, but it is obvious you are not that familiar with “academic” research. I don’t claim to be to most knowledgeable guy on the subject but I am qualified to teach the subject at the graduate level and have done so

While there are some differences of opinion amongst scholars in what constitutes quality research, most scholars feel academic research should follow the “scientific” method or at least be objective and most research will likely consist of a hypothesis and a clearly defined method to test the hypothesis. Chomsky does not do this in any thing I have read of his. Chomsky is a pseudo-scholar, he makes his books appear scholarly, and with his fantastic command of the English language and his ability to persuade cause many non-experts to believe they are seeing the real thing. But experts are not fooled.

Don’t believe me, see what others say”

“For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia.”

Stefan Kanfer, America’s Dumbest Intellectual

http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=831

“The Chomsky defenders--and there seem to be a surprisingly large number of them--seem to form a kind of cult. Arguing with them seems to be a lot like trying to teach Plato's Republic to a pig: it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.”

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html


“All this purports to be political analysis, but Chomsky, it soon becomes evident, does not understand the rudiments of political analysis. Indeed, despite occasional pretenses of reasoned discussion, he is not much interested in the analytical process.”

Arthur Schlesinger Jr

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/schlesinger-chomsky.pdf
“Chomsky, in short, was caught using a technique he has often used since (I shall give further examples in later posts). He runs separate passages together, adding tendentious interpolation, in order to give a false account of the argument he claims to be presenting. It is intellectual dishonesty of a high order. If you are summarising someone else’s argument – especially an argument you are criticising – you are duty-bound to give an accurate account of it. Ellipses must not be used to omit relevant material; interpolations must be aids to clarity of exposition and not editorial devices; passages must not be shorn of context that would alter their meaning. Chomsky’s political writings are littered with violations of these conventions.”

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/chomsky_and_the_1.html

“Noam Chomsky is famous for his contributions to the infant science of linguistics; he is also famous for his denunciations of America, its government, its culture, its foreign policy and its allies. The two Chomskys are quite unrelated. The first writes clearly and eloquently, with a scrupulous respect for the principles of scientific discourse.

The second writes a seething and hectic prose, from which little of substance can be gleaned apart from the self-intoxicated anger of the writer, and which is marked by an utterly unscrupulous attitude to all arguments and opinions other than Chomsky’s own. “
Roger Scruton, The Times, UK,

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/scruton-chomsky.html

“Chomsky's analytic methods remain consistent from year to year, a triumph of cynical doublespeak.”

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/11b57339a643d96a?hl=en&

“Marxism is dead but Chomsky is still living Marxism. Noam said once, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them." You are correct, Sir! I have an offer that Noam should not refuse. If you stay away from economics and political theory, I will stay away from linguistics.”
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1132

“Amartya Sen famously posits that democracies, equipped with adversarial journalism and electoral opposition, avert all famines. Noam Chomsky posits that India's "experiment in democratic capitalism" has caused tens of millions of deaths by undernourishment in the subcontinent alone. And he claims this fact comes from the work of Sen”

Full Context: Fisking Chomsky: <i>The Crimes of Democratic Capitalism</i>

This is especially disgusting. Amartya Sen is one the truly great men of our generation and his influence has helped governments create policies that has helped hundred of millions out of poverty. Sen has deserving won the Noble Prize for economies and is respected and quoted by scholars with both left and right political orientations. Sen, while spreading the gospel of market-based economies, has worked tirelessly to make these policies work better to help the poor. To misrepresent this great scholars work to score political points amongst the uninformed is scandalous. But, that is Chomsky.



“His Peers in academia encompass the whole political spectrum”

Can you name a single respected professor of political science or economics who supports the methodology or conclusions of Chomsky? I can't, but I know a whole raft of them who think Chomsky is a joke.