4 ms·
There is an absence of pragmatism and an excess of moral prosecution in Chomsky's criticisms. He can't point to historically successfully (and hence tested) so
by ankushnarula 9y ago
There is an absence of pragmatism and an excess of moral prosecution in Chomsky's criticisms. He can't point to historically successfully (and hence tested) societies based on his ideals. This isn't a problem as an academic exercise - but it has become fodder for the neo-Marxists/Trotskyists masked as "socialist democrats" wreaking havoc in liberal institutions.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- galacticpony2 9y agoI doubt Chomsky really has any ideals at this point. Politically, he's been occupied with relativism for decades, the utility of which is questionable. He's a master of weasel language, to the effect that he can deny ever having made a solid statement about anything. You'd be hard pressed to ever find a quote of him saying what "should be" in clear, actionable terms. You will however find post-hoc rationalizations, in abundance. He has extraordinary hindsight.
- crdoconnor 9y agoExcept for that book he wrote about it: http://libcom.org/files/1345266991261.pdf http://libcom.org/files/1345266991261.pdf
- cholantesh 9y agoIsn't this just a collection of essays on the promise of anarchism? It's been many years since my sister lent it to m, but I don't recall any discussion of contemporary anarchistic societies. My contention is that if they were a truly viable alternative, more people would migrate into them, and attrition would not be a significant problem.
- tnzn 9y agoThe argument "point out where societiries based on your ideals have worked" is extremely fallacious. You could say the same at the begining of Republics.
- vorotato 9y agoIt's the difference between inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.