5 ms·

In this article, he argues both for and against populism. " What happened is that large parts of the population—which had been passive, apathetic, obedient—tri

In this article, he argues both for and against populism. " What happened is that large parts of the population—which had been passive, apathetic, obedient—tried to enter the political arena in one or another way to press their interests and concerns" vs. " There was a lot of elite discussion across the spectrum about the danger of too much democracy and the need to have what was called more “moderation” in democracy, for people to become more passive and apathetic and not to disturb things too much" Basically, we want more people who believe in what we say to be involved. https://reason.com/archives/2017/05/31/noam-chomskys-venezuela-lesson https://reason.com/archives/2017/05/31/noam-chomskys-venezue... Chomsky is pretty virulently anti market and anti capitalism. His linguistic genius does not give him authority when commenting on policy. Basically, he praised Venezuela (and Chavez, and socialism) until it went to crap, and then blamed the capitalists and the fact that they did not implement "true" socialism (whatever what means) as a reason for why he was never wrong. "Speak up unless you disagree with me."

mhermher 9y ago
What? How does either argue against populism?
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  From wikipedia. "the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people." The article says that he's arguing against populism when it supports Trump or Marie Le Pen. But now he want an engaged electorate. You can't really square the circle. What I hear is "We want more people who support the right thing to vote."
  - jordanb 9y ago
    A different interpretation would be that he's condemning the argument while endorsing the form of the argument. He wants democratic socialists to embrace populist rhetoric and use it to push their agenda, because he prefers that agenda to that of Trump.
    - ende 9y ago
      Democratic socialists don't exist. Bernie Sanders doesn't understand basic political terminology.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Democratic socialists don't exist. Yes they do; first, socialism is, in it's origins, radically democratic. The anti-democratic offshoots of socialism do not define socialism. Second, and more to the point, democratic socialism is, itself, a distinct political movement (it happens to be both democratic and socialist, but even if it wasn't democratic socialism would exist as a distinct thing.) > Bernie Sanders doesn't understand basic political terminology. Clearly, he does far better than you do.
        jimmywanger 9y ago
        > The anti-democratic offshoots of socialism do not define socialism. No true Scotsman. > Clearly, he does far better than you do. Personal attacks? How does this add to the discussion?
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      > he prefers that agenda to that of Trump. Don't we all?
      - concede_pluto 9y ago
        Not understanding why anyone could favor Trump's agenda is a good way for a politician to keep losing elections.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        I do understand why people would favor what he said he would do.
dragonwriter 9y ago
There is no argument for or against populism in your examples (there's an argument that both a popular wave occurred and that attempts to suppress populism occurred, but not an argument for or against populism.) > Basically, we want more people who believe in what we say to be involved. No, actually, the argument he makes isn't about who should be politically involved, it's about how those people ought to be served.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > No, actually, the argument he makes isn't about who should be politically involved, it's about how those people ought to be served. You know that you're being incredibly condescending right now? People ought to be served something they don't choose?
wuch 9y ago
You seem to assume that when Chomsky reports on the elite opinion about democracy, in the second quote, this reflects his own position. Exactly the opposite is the case.
crdoconnor 9y ago
"Basically, we want more people who believe in what we say to be involved." His official stance was that the people who got involved with the far right had legitimate concerns but latched on to a 'solution' that was bad for them (and us) and the left should have done a better job of co-opting them to their cause. I don't know if you've talked to many among the far right but they're often pretty stupid so pretty amenable to being guided one way or the other depending upon who talks to them first. "Chomsky is pretty virulently anti market and anti capitalism. His linguistic genius does not give him authority when commenting on policy." What would make one an authority? "Basically, he praised Venezuela" He praised Venezuela cutting extreme poverty from 25% to 7%, which attracted a lot of criticism in America. A few American corporations lost a lot of money in Venezuela thanks to that diversion of funds ^^.

mhermher 9y ago

What? How does either argue against populism?

jimmywanger 9y ago
From wikipedia. "the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people." The article says that he's arguing against populism when it supports Trump or Marie Le Pen. But now he want an engaged electorate. You can't really square the circle. What I hear is "We want more people who support the right thing to vote."
- jordanb 9y ago
  A different interpretation would be that he's condemning the argument while endorsing the form of the argument. He wants democratic socialists to embrace populist rhetoric and use it to push their agenda, because he prefers that agenda to that of Trump.
  - ende 9y ago
    Democratic socialists don't exist. Bernie Sanders doesn't understand basic political terminology.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Democratic socialists don't exist. Yes they do; first, socialism is, in it's origins, radically democratic. The anti-democratic offshoots of socialism do not define socialism. Second, and more to the point, democratic socialism is, itself, a distinct political movement (it happens to be both democratic and socialist, but even if it wasn't democratic socialism would exist as a distinct thing.) > Bernie Sanders doesn't understand basic political terminology. Clearly, he does far better than you do.
      - jimmywanger 9y ago
        > The anti-democratic offshoots of socialism do not define socialism. No true Scotsman. > Clearly, he does far better than you do. Personal attacks? How does this add to the discussion?
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > he prefers that agenda to that of Trump. Don't we all?
    - concede_pluto 9y ago
      Not understanding why anyone could favor Trump's agenda is a good way for a politician to keep losing elections.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        I do understand why people would favor what he said he would do.

dragonwriter 9y ago

There is no argument for or against populism in your examples (there's an argument that both a popular wave occurred and that attempts to suppress populism occurred, but not an argument for or against populism.) > Basically, we want more people who believe in what we say to be involved. No, actually, the argument he makes isn't about who should be politically involved, it's about how those people ought to be served.

jimmywanger 9y ago
> No, actually, the argument he makes isn't about who should be politically involved, it's about how those people ought to be served. You know that you're being incredibly condescending right now? People ought to be served something they don't choose?

wuch 9y ago

You seem to assume that when Chomsky reports on the elite opinion about democracy, in the second quote, this reflects his own position. Exactly the opposite is the case.

crdoconnor 9y ago

"Basically, we want more people who believe in what we say to be involved." His official stance was that the people who got involved with the far right had legitimate concerns but latched on to a 'solution' that was bad for them (and us) and the left should have done a better job of co-opting them to their cause. I don't know if you've talked to many among the far right but they're often pretty stupid so pretty amenable to being guided one way or the other depending upon who talks to them first. "Chomsky is pretty virulently anti market and anti capitalism. His linguistic genius does not give him authority when commenting on policy." What would make one an authority? "Basically, he praised Venezuela" He praised Venezuela cutting extreme poverty from 25% to 7%, which attracted a lot of criticism in America. A few American corporations lost a lot of money in Venezuela thanks to that diversion of funds ^^.