News Noam Chomsky's Views on Politics and Public Opinion

[Nusc]

My friend who reads a lot of Noam Chomsky says

democrats and republicans differ only on the basis of the industry through which they get their campaign money.

Is this view point supported by Noam Chomsky? It seems rather strong.

Further more states that public opinion in the states is "manufactured". nothing happens by virtue of the general people wanting it. any significant action, for good or bad, is taken only when the business sector decides so.

What do you guys think>?

 

[arildno]

"Noam Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll "

That says more about the voters than about the Pol Pot and Enver Hoxha adorer Noam Chomsky.

(No, I don't have a reference that Chomsky adored Hoxha, it is simply a prediction.)

 

[madness]

He was also described as the leading living intellectual by the New York Times. But I suppose all the people who voted for him in the poll and the journalists at the New York Times don't have a clue what they're talking about.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, let's try this again...[off topic posts deleted]

This topic is problematic from the beginning, asking personal opinions of a highly controvertial person, but let's at least try to keep it on topic and we'll see if the topic itself has anywhere to go.

 

[arildno]

My friend who reads a lot of Noam Chomsky says

democrats and republicans differ only on the basis of the industry through which they get their campaign money.

Is this view point supported by Noam Chomsky? It seems rather strong.

No, it is trivial.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are upholders of democratic ideas,

in contrast to noam chomsky who is an oclocrat, and not a democrat.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the "global intellectuals poll" - an internet poll with a targeted audience (readers of two particular magazines) isn't really worth much for judging the quality of Chomsy's ideas.

 

[arildno]

nothing happens by virtue of the general people wanting it.

That is advocacy of oclocracy, rather than democracy.

In Noam's bizarro world, if the "people" decides (almost) unanimously to kill off the hunchbacks and sagbreasted women due to their ugliness, then the "people" (or rather, those calling themselves the representatives of the people) has the right to do so.

In a democracy, guarding human rights is more fundamental than heeding the popular attitude to those rights.

If the majority of the people, for example, is in favour of violating human rights, they are not entitled to rule, and should be controlled.

 

[madness]

In answer to the question, yes I think it is a view point supported by Noam Chomsky.

 

[russ_watters]

My opinion on Chomsky is that he's someone who says things a certain portion of the population like to hear and he says it in a way that makes them trust him.

There was a recent deleted thread in Skepticism and Debunking where someone asked for a debunking of a wacko (a well dressed, soft spoken, old white guy) who said he was communicating with aliens from the constellation/galaxy of Andromeda. The OP said the video interview seemed compelling. When I asked what was compelling about it, he said the guy seemed earnest. Earnest?! That's what Chomsky is - that's why people listen to him. He looks and talks like an academic, even though what he says is sheer nonsense.

There was a recent thread in Social Sciences where someone asked about an interview that Chomsky did. Chomsky made a claim that lit a red light for the OP, but he seemed so sincere when he said it, the OP asked for others to comment on it. The claim was about the incomes of Americans dropping over the past few decades. Since a central part of Chomsky's ideology is based on the idea that capitalism is a failure, this is a pretty important factoid he said so earnestly. Trouble is, it is easy to check and what he said is clearly wrong. Long story, but the point is that the central basis of Chomsky's ideology is quite simply and clearly a lie. I won't explore the "why" of that, but what it means is that he's just another crackpot who people shouldn't pay any attention to.

 

[WhoWee]

My friend who reads a lot of Noam Chomsky says

democrats and republicans differ only on the basis of the industry through which they get their campaign money.

Is this view point supported by Noam Chomsky? It seems rather strong.

Further more states that public opinion in the states is "manufactured". nothing happens by virtue of the general people wanting it. any significant action, for good or bad, is taken only when the business sector decides so.

What do you guys think>?

Chomsky is a unique person - with as near a celebrity status as possible for an academic.

To comment directly to your post, it would be necessary to review the collective work of Chomsky across linguistics, science, psychology, and politics in order to form a coherent and specific response. Reducing him to a sound bite would be a mistake.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That is advocacy of oclocracy, rather than democracy.

That's ochlocracy.

 

[arildno]

That's ochlocracy.

Ouch!

 

[Cyrus]

I think Chomsky is interesting to watch in terms of his videos. But I'd like to know specifically things he has said that were wrong. I see a lot of Chomsky bashing with no references or substantiation. In other words, I'd like to see a quote or video link where

Chomsky says: X

which is wrong according to reference: Y

 

[russ_watters]

Here's the thread I was referring to: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=332168

And the quote: "For the majority of the population, real wages have either stagnated or declined for about 30 years. For most people in the US, the last 30 years have been pretty grim."

 

[Mattara]

My opinion on Chomsky is that he's someone who says things a certain portion of the population like to hear and he says it in a way that makes them trust him.

There was a recent deleted thread in Skepticism and Debunking where someone asked for a debunking of a wacko (a well dressed, soft spoken, old white guy) who said he was communicating with aliens from the constellation/galaxy of Andromeda. The OP said the video interview seemed compelling. When I asked what was compelling about it, he said the guy seemed earnest. Earnest?! That's what Chomsky is - that's why people listen to him. He looks and talks like an academic, even though what he says is sheer nonsense.

An assertion is not an argument. Can you give specific examples of things that Chomsky has said that is "sheer nonsense" and provide evidence to support this claim? Thank you.

 

[russ_watters]

An assertion is not an argument. Can you give specific examples of things that Chomsky has said that is "sheer nonsense" and provide evidence to support this claim? Thank you.

? An assertion of a fact is part of the supporting evidence for a point - part of an argument. I think it goes without saying that if the asserted fact is nonsense, the point it is used to argue is probably also nonsense (I say "probably" because another option is that the person making the argument isn't smart enough to make the argument properly).

Note that in that particular quote (and just fyi, the order of those two sentences was wrong - I had just copied and pasted them from the other thread without checking), he was responding to a question about Obama and he rambled on for a minute without making an actual point (or maybe the youtube video cut him off before he got to it). But what I'm doing here is attaching that quote to what I perceive as Chomsky's primary thesis - the failure of capitalism. Ie, if capitalism is a failure, a long term decline in real wages and standard of living would be a good piece of supporting evidence that capitalism isn't working. On the wiki page for him, it lists a number of his political ideologies and one of them (in the wiki's words) is: "Critical of the American capitalist system and big business..." This quote goes toward that part of his ideology.

 

[russ_watters]

"if it needs force to vouchsafe basic human rights of equality,... then such force is not only permissible, but morally obligatory"

"your stance, however, is fully compatible with the substance of the worst murderer-regimes the world has ever witnessed"

I did not put any words in his mouth, I only used what he said.

You started with what he said, then you made and used your own paraphrase/interpretation of what he said which did not match what he said. In this post, you just restated it again, without attempting to make the connection I requested.

Regardless, this is getting off topic as well. If you wish to assert that the US's internal use of force to protect rights is the same as Stalinist Russia's internal use of force to violate it, start a new thread - and use better arguments.

 

[russ_watters]

Off topic posts deleted. That's enough of that.

 

[ideasrule]

For example by the rethinking of the status of Jews that happened in Germany during the 1930s?

That was done with wide popular acclaim..

Hitler's rise to power, although not his rule after he came to power, was an example of democracy in action. So was the widespread slavery and racism in the United States in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as well as the abuse of natives that continued well into the 1970's. This goes to show that democracy does not always guarantee personal freedoms, especially when--as is the case in every democracy that has ever existed--the electorate does not include the entire population.

 

[WhoWee]

I can't accept your position. As I argued earlier, human rights are a human construction, decided by some group of people at some time in the past. Different people may have different views on what is a human right - education, healthcare, minimum wage? If the current population do not like the Bill of Rights set out by that group of people how ever many generations ago, then they should be able to change it. At the heart of your argument, is the idea that people are too stupid to know what's best for them, and therefore need to be controlled for their own good.

Has Chomsky articulated a Bill of Rights?

 

[madness]

I was referring to the American Bill of Rights. Chomsky advocates a freely associating participatory type of society, so I assume he doesn't advocate a bill of rights, although people would be free to create one if they wished. Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist, meaning he advocates a society in which there is no centralised monopoly on coercion (the state):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky

 

[WhoWee]

I was referring to the American Bill of Rights. Chomsky advocates a freely associating participatory type of society, so I assume he doesn't advocate a bill of rights, although people would be free to create one if they wished. Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist, meaning he advocates a society in which there is no centralised monopoly on coercion (the state):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky

Who is proposing the list of "human rights" in your post?

"Different people may have different views on what is a human right - education, healthcare, minimum wage? If the current population do not like the Bill of Rights set out by that group of people how ever many generations ago, then they should be able to change it"

 

[madness]

My point is that human rights do not fundamentally exist, they are agreed by a group of people. This is why I believe that a population should be able to influence which rights they live under, just like they should be able to influence which laws they live under. So in my opinion the population should be able in a democracy to elect a party who can then effect changes to what the human rights are. Or under Chomsky's model, there is no party and decisions are made at a grass roots level.

 

[WhoWee]

My point is that human rights do not fundamentally exist, they are agreed by a group of people. This is why I believe that a population should be able to influence which rights they live under, just like they should be able to influence which laws they live under. So in my opinion the population should be able in a democracy to elect a party who can then effect changes to what the human rights are. Or under Chomsky's model, there is no party and decisions are made at a grass roots level.

How often should these "human rights" be placed on the ballot - did Chomsky articulate any such opinion? Are these Chomsky's ideas or yours?

 

[mheslep]

After 911 Chomsky came out ranting that after all the US was to blame and that the US does far worse every other week. In response Christopher Hitchens rhetorically knee capped Chompsky, and sums up my opinion, including the part at the end suggesting that Chomsky was a lucid intellectual 40 years ago, but now has descended into a crank world consisting of the worst parts of his character.
http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/hitchens-3.htm

 

[madness]

"How often should these "human rights" be placed on the ballot - did Chomsky articulate any such opinion? Are these Chomsky's ideas or yours?"

I'm not advocated a specific system, I was just responding in a debate with aldrino. I think that if a party puts out a policy that (for example) healthcare is a human right, and the public vote to be represented by this party, then the party should have to power to implement that policy. As far as I know Chomsky didn't speak explicitly about a bill of rights in his vision of a society. The main idea of his political ideology is the the state is removed and replaced by grass roots democracy.

 

[Mattara]

? An assertion of a fact is part of the supporting evidence for a point - part of an argument. I think it goes without saying that if the asserted fact is nonsense, the point it is used to argue is probably also nonsense (I say "probably" because another option is that the person making the argument isn't smart enough to make the argument properly).

Note that in that particular quote (and just fyi, the order of those two sentences was wrong - I had just copied and pasted them from the other thread without checking), he was responding to a question about Obama and he rambled on for a minute without making an actual point (or maybe the youtube video cut him off before he got to it). But what I'm doing here is attaching that quote to what I perceive as Chomsky's primary thesis - the failure of capitalism. Ie, if capitalism is a failure, a long term decline in real wages and standard of living would be a good piece of supporting evidence that capitalism isn't working. On the wiki page for him, it lists a number of his political ideologies and one of them (in the wiki's words) is: "Critical of the American capitalist system and big business..." This quote goes toward that part of his ideology.

Not that easy to make complex political arguments in a few minutes of a Youtube clip, especially if you have to disperse misconceptions at the same time. People like Obama can do it, but mostly because he provides assertions, rather than arguments and I think we have established that the two are very much different.

Thank you for your clarification. There are a few examples where Chomsky is talking outside his field and makes some clear mistakes.

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm

CHOMSKY: Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can’t deal with them. The reason why physics can achieve such depth is that it restricts itself to extremely simple things, abstracted from the complexity of the world. As soon as an atom gets too complicated, maybe helium, they hand it over to chemists. When problems become too complicated for chemists, they hand it over to biologists. Biologists often hand it over to the sociologists, and they hand it over to the historians, and so on. But it’s a complicated matter: Science studies what’s at the edge of understanding, and what’s at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated. In fact even understanding insects is an extremely complicated problem in the sciences. So the actual sciences tell us virtually nothing about human affairs.

Newton disproved them. He showed that the world is not intelligible to us. Newton demonstrated that there are no machines, that there’s nothing mechanical in the sense in which it was assumed that the world was mechanical. He didn’t believe it — in fact he felt his work was an absurdity — but he proved it, and he spent the rest of his life trying to disprove it. And other scientists did later on. I mean, it’s often said that Newton got rid of the ghost in the machine, but it’s quite the opposite. Newton exorcised the machine. He left the ghost

People have a right to believe whatever they like, including irrational beliefs. In fact, we all have irrational beliefs, in a certain sense. We have to. If I walk out the door, I have an irrational belief that the floor is there. Can I prove it? You know if I’m paying attention to it I see that it’s there, but I can’t prove it. In fact, if you’re a scientist, you don’t prove anything. The sciences don’t have proofs, what they have is surmises. There’s a lot of nonsense these days about evolution being just a theory. Everything’s just a theory, including classical physics! If you want proofs you go to arithmetic; in arithmetic you can prove things. But you stipulate the axioms. But in the sciences you’re trying to discover things, and the notion of proof doesn’t exist.

(The problem with the last quote is that he sets up a dichotomy between mathematical proof and irrational beliefs)

 

[Nusc]

In answer to the question, yes I think it is a view point supported by Noam Chomsky.

Hey madness, where is the source?

Thanks

 

[WhoWee]

"How often should these "human rights" be placed on the ballot - did Chomsky articulate any such opinion? Are these Chomsky's ideas or yours?"

I'm not advocated a specific system, I was just responding in a debate with aldrino. I think that if a party puts out a policy that (for example) healthcare is a human right, and the public vote to be represented by this party, then the party should have to power to implement that policy. As far as I know Chomsky didn't speak explicitly about a bill of rights in his vision of a society. The main idea of his political ideology is the the state is removed and replaced by grass roots democracy.

So basically, these are YOUR ideas and you think Chomsky would agree?

 

[madness]

"Hey madness, where is the source?"



He says near the beginning "they are two factions of the same party". Although he does admit that they have some differences. Note that I am not trying to strike a debate on this issue, just to provide a source for Chomsky's views.

 

[A. Nomaly]

Real wages; Money wages corrected for Inflation over time so as to provide a measure of actual changes in Purchasing Power over time.


(did I register just to add that definition? yup I guess I did. eh, it's a slow day)

 

[WhoWee]

Real wages; Money wages corrected for Inflation over time so as to provide a measure of actual changes in Purchasing Power over time.


(did I register just to add that definition? yup I guess I did. eh, it's a slow day)

Hello A. Nomaly, welcome to PF.

Would you care to introduce yourself, perhaps tell us a little about your eduction and experience?

 

[Al68]

My point is that human rights do not fundamentally exist, they are agreed by a group of people.

Are you referring to entitlements or natural rights?

Entitlements don't exist "fundamentally", they are created by human contract or agreement, like you say. Natural rights by definition exist independently of any human agreement.

 

[mheslep]

Here's a right that's been overlooked for far to long.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024687.php"

 

[madness]

"Are you referring to entitlements or natural rights?

Entitlements don't exist "fundamentally", they are created by human contract or agreement, like you say. Natural rights by definition exist independently of any human agreement. "

If these rights by definition exist independently of any human agreement then I don't believe any such things exist. Rights, in my opinion, are like laws - they are only a set of rules people invented to live under.

"So basically, these are YOUR ideas and you think Chomsky would agree?"

Well since Chomsky advocates the abolition of the state and the use of direct grass roots democracy, I think it is reasonable to assume that he would allow the "rights" we allow ourselves to be chosen democratically.

 

[Al68]

"Are you referring to entitlements or natural rights?

Entitlements don't exist "fundamentally", they are created by human contract or agreement, like you say. Natural rights by definition exist independently of any human agreement. "

If these rights by definition exist independently of any human agreement then I don't believe any such things exist. Rights, in my opinion, are like laws - they are only a set of rules people invented to live under.

It sounds to me that you're using the word "rights" only as a synonym for entitlements, in which case I would agree with you in principle (and I suspect almost everyone else).

But I have never used the word "right" as a synonym for entitlement. I use the word entitlement to refer to such things.

The concept of "natural rights" is a completely different concept, and their existence is independent of any human agreement, even if you think there are only zero of them.

 

[Al68]

Chomsky is a unique person - with as near a celebrity status as possible for an academic.

To comment directly to your post, it would be necessary to review the collective work of Chomsky across linguistics, science, psychology, and politics in order to form a coherent and specific response. Reducing him to a sound bite would be a mistake.

This is very good point. After a little research, it's easy to see he simply isn't a socialist by the common definition in any way.

He even claims that his views have origins in "The Enlightenment and classical liberalism", which is quite the opposite of socialism by the common definition.

He opposes "state capitalism" (as all libertarians/classical liberals do), but he's under the (false) impression that's what is practiced in the U.S. He claims to believe in anarchism, yet supports many government actions, like enforcing business regulations.

He clearly thinks people should not sell their labor to business owners (calling it "wage slavery"), but as far as I can see, does not advocate restricting the practice in any way.

It seems to me that maybe his vision of an ideal society is very socialist-like, but his political beliefs (libertarian?) prevent him from advocating any means to achieve it.

It's like an anti-abortion/pro-choice advocate that claims that there would be no abortions in his ideal society, but there would be no legal restrictions on them either. Like Chomsky, the society envisioned simply isn't the actual result of the political system advocated.

 

[Mattara]

He opposes "state capitalism" (as all libertarians/classical liberals do), but he's under the (false) impression that's what is practiced in the U.S. He claims to believe in anarchism, yet supports many government actions, like enforcing business regulations.

That position is fully consistent. Anarchism is against a central coercive monopoly, not the enforcement of voluntary agreed regulations.

 

[Al68]

That position is fully consistent. Anarchism is against a central coercive monopoly, not the enforcement of voluntary agreed regulations.

Who was talking about "voluntarily agreed regulations"? Chomsky wasn't.

 

[Sarpedon]

Chomsky does believe in human rights being universal among humans.
So claiming Chomsky supports the majority violating the humans rights of the minority is stupid. He doesn't. You would if you shared some of his views. But that's a different matter.

No one here really has been able to be critical of anything he has said. Chomsky never said he believes in ochlocracy. He supports the human rights violations of Hoxha because you predict he does..?

This is all pretty silly.

Even the stuff about physics that were quoted aren't really wrong if you take in mind he isn't a physicist.

And then we have someone trying to argue that those who support democracy actually supported Hitler because Hitler was voted into office. What more can I say...

Who was talking about "voluntarily agreed regulations"? Chomsky wasn't.

He doesn't have to mention it just because you think it's not consistent if he doesn't. How do regulations get into place when there is no power to force it upon the people? The only way it will happen is if the community itself agrees to put them in place.

He thinks a corporation or a factory is owned by the community it is part of.

 

[arildno]

. Anarchism is against a central coercive monopoly,

And what about a multitude of locally coercive structures?

That is the necessary result of anarchism..

 

[mheslep]

No one here really has been able to be critical of anything he has said.

Then you missed this above
http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/hitchens-3.htm

 

[Sarpedon]

I like some Hitchens every once in a while. But I can't really take him seriously. Especially not when it comes to Iraq.

 

[Mattara]

And what about a multitude of locally coercive structures?

That is the necessary result of anarchism..

DROs are not coercive, their use of violence is the result of voluntary contracts. A multitude of DROs is a great thing: better efficiency and lower price for customers and of course this removes the age old question of who will watch the watchers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes?

 

[arildno]

Well, and if we make it WAY more local than this DRO fantasy:

a)
Can a father be oppressive towards his family?

b) If a), can people in this anarchistic brave, new world force him to desist from such coercion?