Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

**wilder** · 06-08-2008, 02:08 AM

Reading Chomsky is one thing, but believing Chomsky is another.

He is an incredibly clever man to have so many people so much at odds with one another because of his ideas, when he actually is doing nothing at all about any of it!

**ItsRobsLife** · 06-08-2008, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by wilder

Sorry, but having been described as having a non-violent, non-combative stand against capitalism....how on earth would any of his sociological goals be attained?

Through education.

**wilder** · 06-08-2008, 02:38 AM

Yes, this is one of the correct answers!

**wilder** · 06-08-2008, 02:54 AM

Man's greatest 'false idols' are contained in the knowledge he calls 'truth'.

**wilder** · 06-08-2008, 02:55 AM

Ladies, gentlemen....and moderators....Good night!

**ItsRobsLife** · 06-08-2008, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

^

More and more attempts to change the topic from Chomsky's lies to me. Same old strategy of the left, fuel hatred instead of debating evidence.

I thought that was the strategy of right wing bloggers, Hey! you're stealing Chomsky's ideas.

The story of the 20th century is the story of socialism versus freedom.

Succinct and to the point the most complex century so far summed up by TeakDoors greatest intellectual.

Freedom won, why is that so hard for the leftists to accept. Why do the leftists continue to follow a failed philosophy and its leader despite the overwhelming evidence that their ideology which their leader advocates does not work?

We are all failiures, lets give it up lads no point in carrying on.

Obviously socialism is dead, freedom is our future. Why are these silly Chomiskities still holding on to the idea tyranny leads to happiness and improvements in our lives?

Now you mention it, it is soooooo obvious. I'm voting for freedom next time, who is the candidate and where can I get their manifesto?

One thing we can learn from the Chomskyites, communists, Khmer Rouge and all others with similar political ideology, never underestimate the stupidity of some members of mankind.

Yes otherwise I might generalise about people and try to blur the lines between their differences to suit my own version of history, thanks for pointing that out, I'll be sure to be more careful about it in future.

What do you call the followers of a proven liar and fraud?

Republicans?

I call them stupid.

What do you call the followers of someone who lives a luxurious capitalist lifestyle while proclaiming the evil of the lifestyle he lives?

Mmmm it's something to do with Rupert Murdoch isn't it...?

I call them stupid

What do you call the followers of a man who has supported the most brutal regimes of the last 50 years?

Christians? no Jews..? Oooh is it the guy in charge of the World Bank? The IMF.

I call them stupid

What do you call the followers of an ideology that has failed everywhere it has been tried?

Trick question, I was going to say Republicans again, but it's Capitalists.

I call them stupid.

What do you call the followers of an individual who believes the country he lives in is the most evil place on earth but makes not attempts to move to places where regimes he supports reign?

Can't be Mcdonalds-ites, that doesn't make sense they are everywhere, is McDonalds a cult or an ideology?.
Um can I get some syntax on this one?

I call them stupid

Chomskyites, you prove that no matter how far the human race has progressed, there are still an abundance of stupid genes in the human gene pool.

We are not worthy of your stunning insight oh wise one. Go forth and spread the word.

Chomskyites (stupidities) carry on,

Is that like Carry On Camping but they wear stupid iTies and is an iTie like an iPod, cos I think my cousin Dwayne has got one, it's white.

there is no way your logic will ever convert anyone but the truly stupid.

He has spoken, we are truly blessed yet still no wiser.

Amazon.co.uk: hegemony or survival: Books

There's one there for £2.95 I'll even chip in if that's over your budget.

Happy reading, Messiah.

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 06:34 AM

"yet still no wiser."

This is obvious. The close-minded never get wiser.

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 08:46 AM

“how on earth would any of his sociological goals be attained?”

How are socialist goals ever obtained? Through the gun, obviously. People do not voluntarily give up their freedom, which is why socialism finds democracy its enemy. For example, The Berlin Wall was not built to keep people from pouring into the worker’s paradise of Eastern Europe.

“Or is Right wing scholarship these days a question of quoting from an unpublished right wing Blog?”

Obviously you decided to ignore the article in the Harvard International Review written by a Harvard Professor I provided, or the opinions of the professor at Stanford I gave. Selected amnesia? Paul Bogdanor wrote what you called a right-wing blog, he is a well-published author who one must admit is a bit of an activist. However, he does do his homework. As I pointed out with Chomsky, political views do not make one a fraud or a liar, Chomsky’s lies make him a fraud and a liar.

Modern leftist ideology (I am not referring to mainstream views of the Democratic Party in the US and its equivalent in other countries) is based on lies, distortions and hatred. The modern left hates Israel, The USA, capitalism, NAFTA, Free-trade agreements, and a host of other things associated with voluntary free choice. But what are they for? When has Chomsky ever written with a focus on success, not failure? Why so much anger and hatred? Leftist ideologies have always focused on hated. The Nazis (NATIONAL SOCIALISTS) hated ethnic minorities, Communism’s central them was class hatred, and so on and on. That is why communist have had some success in revolutions (One has to respect the determination and commitment of the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban communist military forces that brought communism to their lands), but it is also why socialism has never been able to create a successfully functioning society. Hate helps win wars, but this emotion falls flat when time to build something positive rolls around.

What good is it to be a dissident if you need to falsify the information to make your case.

Recently, I have read a few pieces by an economists working for the Asian Development Bank named Ali. Ali, from my viewpoint, has a more or less leftist orientation. However, he does not manufacture evidence and uses existing evidence. He is compelled to agree with more mainstream economists that the correlation between freer trade and economic growth and poverty reduction is so strong that there must be some causation. However, Ali tends to focus on equality of income more than ending absolute poverty and economic growth. In other words, he believes governments should give more emphasis on income equality and less on overall growth. Fair enough, I disagree with him, but I respect both his opinion and more importantly his scholarship. He does not manufacture, twist, distort, or ignore existing evidence in the way Chomsky does. Therefore, while I disagree with Ali, I think his arguments based on facts have a place in questioning our existing ways of thinking. This is how dissent works. But the important thing in dissent is that arguments are based on facts, not falsehoods. A public debate based on lies is not productive. A public debate on interpretation of evidence and setting of objectives is productive.

I agree this fault of manufacturing, and distorting evidence is also found with some on the right as well, and I often point that out when it is found as well.

**good2bhappy** · 06-08-2008, 09:16 AM

^ please change your font.
I find it difficult to read your type.
You have a few salient points worth noting

**good2bhappy** · 06-08-2008, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

A public debate based on lies is not productive. A public debate on interpretation of evidence and setting of objectives is productive

Good point

**sabang** · 06-08-2008, 10:11 AM

I can agree with a fair amount of that post AA. I think the only examples of societies that have stayed the course of time have two major things in common-
1- they allow a fair amount of personal liberty and diversity amongst the populace, i.e pluralistic
2- they have a market based economy. Not necessarily 'free trade', but fundamentally an economy where the market price of goods and services are determined by the market, ie supply & demand. Furthermore, overwhelmingly private ownership of the means of production rather than public.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

When has Chomsky ever written with a focus on success, not failure

Ironically, about the early Sandinista years. He is also quite keen on the current Bolivian government. Theres no question that his writings are based more on criticism and expose' though- hey, thats his self appointed role.

As for Communism/ Socialism/ Fascism etc, I have an intrinsic distrust of such labels, But -

Communism as defined by Marx will never work. No market economy, no private ownership of the means of production (so little or no individual enterprise). I suppose you can argue it is a revolutionary ideology, but as a functioning system it had to change when in power to stay in power- China did, the USSR didn't.

Socialism is a much, much broader brush. Modern Democracatic societies inculcate several Socialist concepts such as social welfare, state education, health care etc. That does not make them Socialist as such, but a purely Capitalist society would not be one that would be highly favoured by most of it's populace.

**good2bhappy** · 06-08-2008, 10:26 AM

Nozik's Nightwatchman state is an interesting concept

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 10:54 AM

"Communism as defined by Marx will never work."

100% agree

Obviously, it is time to move on. Communism has been tried and failed in each place it took root. Why do so many of the far left continue to advocate this system?

"Modern Democracatic societies inculcate several Socialist concepts such as social welfare, state education, health care etc. That does not make them Socialist as such, but a purely Capitalist society would not be one that would be highly favoured by most of it's populace."

I agree with this 100% as well.

Let us move beyond the debate of whether the primary use of markets or the government controls to run an economy is best. This debate is settled, It took many wars, millions of unnecessary deaths due to poverty caused by communism, and tens of thousands academic studies, but the proof is overwhelming which system works best.

Now it is time to debate on how to make a market-based system work best for everyone.

Hopefully mankind has learned its lesson and this time the debate will focus on logic and evidence, but I have my doubts. Emotions and irrationality have not been eliminated from economic or political debate, and both the left and right are guilty.

The biggest difference (at least in economics) is that the evidence supports the position of the right. In other political issues, it is not so clear.

Lying and making emotional appeals that are blaming America, capitalism and free choice for all the world's troubles do not advance the welfare of mankind.

**ItsRobsLife** · 06-08-2008, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

'Noam Chomsky is a major scholarly resource. Not to have read him is to court genuine ignorance.' Nation

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

"yet still no wiser."

This is obvious. The close-minded never get wiser.

Have you read any good books lately?

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 12:41 PM

^

Yes and writing a few too. And you?

Although mostly I read academic journals (Occupational hazard) here are a few recommendations for laymen.

A Globalized World? Culture, economic politics, David Held edited 2nd ed, Routledge: London, 2004

Naisbitt, J. (1997). Megatrends Asia: Eight Asian megatrends that are reshaping out world. New York: Touchstone.

Poverty Targeting in Asia John Weiss edited, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2005

Chandler, D. (2000). A History of Cambodia, 3rd ed. Silkworm Books: Chiang Mai: Thailand.

**AntRobertson** · 06-08-2008, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Have you read any good books lately?

Yes and writing a few too.

That's for the critics to decide, surely.

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 01:21 PM

^ Hey, my mom said they were good? Isn't that good enough for you?

**good2bhappy** · 06-08-2008, 01:23 PM

^Now who is on topic?

**AntRobertson** · 06-08-2008, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

^ Hey, my mom said they were good? Isn't that good enough for you?

Frankly no, it isn't. I'm sure she's a perfectly lovely woman and all but mum's are inherently biased. It's their job.

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 01:40 PM

^

Having trouble seeing the tongue in cheek?

**AntRobertson** · 06-08-2008, 01:42 PM

^I think you've just fallen, screaming all the way Wile. E. Coyote style - into a gaping sarchasm.

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 01:59 PM

^

Yet another personal attack, how many times have you used that strategy on this thread?

How many times have you actually used evidence to support your position?

First answer

dozens at least

Second answer

zero

**AntRobertson** · 06-08-2008, 02:06 PM

You're ridiculous. What personal attack? What position?

Stop being so precious, it was tongue-in-cheek.

**Butterfly** · 06-08-2008, 02:15 PM

I don't see what's wrong with Marx Communism and why it is demonized by the right so violently,

we will eventually come to it once capitalism fails and bring the world to a collapse end,

**Accidental Ajarn** · 06-08-2008, 02:24 PM

"I don't see what's wrong with Marx Communism"

Wooooooo, dude, lay the bong down for awhile and come back to THIS planet.

Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions