9 ms·
Chomsky is a great critic of social issues like imperialism, manufactured consent, and state capitalism. However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about V
by em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
Chomsky is a great critic of social issues like imperialism, manufactured consent, and state capitalism. However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this.
- Crye 9y agoI'm not sure what you're referencing, but Chomsky has typically not been aligned with state socialism. I think typically it's viewed as another structure which uses it's position to maintain power.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agohttps://youtu.be/HHTe2Pn7ACg https://youtu.be/HHTe2Pn7ACg He praises the Venezuela's state socialist policies, but manages to blame the problems on private capital.
- thomasahle 9y agoThat video has frustratingly little information. Except for the hosts rage and short quotes from a supposed conversation with Chomsky; the only actual study mentioned is discarded immediately on basis of its author having advised some movie on the topic that he's an expert on.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoJust Google Chomsky Chavez or Venezuela. I've heard him give plenty of interviews where he talks about how great Chavez is. Sorry I had just provided the top search result.
- gt_ 9y agoI have heard these too and that is a misrepresentation of his statements. He does not say Chavez is great. He makes specific and nuanced arguments about value exemplified in some things Chavez did. This probably didn't need saying, but what an obnoxious generalization to make.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- RobertoG 9y agoSo, you want to point to Chomsky opinions about Venezuela and this is the best link you can find?
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoNo that was the first video on Google search, which I quickly looked over, and had the necessary quotes from Chomsky to validate my point.
- RobertoG 9y agoChomsky opinion about Venezuela is not so difficult to understand if we make a honest effort. Unfortunately a honest effort, as reflected by your link, is not very common. Chomsky supported initially Chavez, (who, by the way, and not as your link insinuate, was democratically elected), because his government initially improved the conditions of the most humble people in the country. People that lived in misery in one of the most resources rich countries in the world, elected what was then, a new hope. As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them. Here there is video of Chomsky criticizing the Venezuela government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHgtLp21Iw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHgtLp21Iw And, for completion sake, here there is a video of the government of Venezuela criticizing Chomsky's criticism of them (in Spanish only, sorry): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS1nx3EccI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS1nx3EccI
- galacticpony2 9y ago> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them. That doesn't just happen "frequently", it has happened in 100% of socialist countries after the "revolution". The "critics" then get silenced or killed, unless they happen to (ironically) be sitting in a comfortable chair in an imperialist capitalist country such as the USA, like Chomsky. You'd think that with this track record, a smart guy like Chomsky would begin to see that there must be something fundamentally wrong with socialist political theory. Yet, he keeps retreating into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy whenever the next socialist experiment fails.
- Bud 9y agoChomsky is a linguistics professor. His students won't presumably have that much reason to care about whether he was right about Venezuela or not.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoStill if they are young and impressionable and like his linguistics teachings, they might be lured into believing his opinions on other subjects.
- honestoHeminway 9y agoHis students might not be just linguists but also some compiler builders learning about context-free-gramars and the chomsky hierarchy
- azaras 9y agoHe is a libertarian socialist therefore he doesn't like state socialism.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoNevertheless, he praises state-socialist policies.
- RobertoG 9y agoOr, maybe, he just praise reduction of poverty. That it's something that actually happened in Venezuela when Chomsky showed his support, by the way. From then he has criticised them frequently.
- AlexCoventry 9y agoIs there some crucial factor in Venezuela's woes which clearly arises from socialism? It seems likely that the US will soon become the latest demonstration that corruption can damage a country with any form of government. Chomsky identifies that as the problem in Venezuela, which I find plausible. https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_american_governments_have https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_...
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago-Redistribution and price controls, which have brought production, and therefore consumption, to a halt. -Preventing markets and prices from working and substituting with centralized economic planning. https://fee.org/articles/you-cant-deny-that-venezuela-is-a-socialist-calamity/ https://fee.org/articles/you-cant-deny-that-venezuela-is-a-s...
- ue_ 9y agoInterestingly enough, redistribution isn't a Socialist policy; if the workers (proletariat) control and own the social means of production, i.e not a state which is clearly not under control of the workers (i.e not a dictatorship of the proletariat) then redistribition would not be necessary unless agreed to on a voluntary basis by the community. Instead, we see there is still wage labour. Thrre is still money, which as Engels reminds us contains the law of value in embryo, there is still private property, both state owned and private (as we saw in the USSR and Cuba and more obviously in China). The very fact we are discussing prices shows the proof is in the pudding - there is no Socialism, there is a government attempting to control a capitalist (fitting all of Marx's conditions for a capitalist mode of production as outlined in Capital) economy, the fact that the free market has been limited, or that the state owns private property rather than McDonald's or Microsoft is frankly irrelevant.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoSounds like you are talking about a pure idealized version of socialism. However, I referred to Venezuela as an example of state socialism. Let me quote the wiki article so we both know we are talking about the same thing: "State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself..." and: "State socialism was traditionally advocated as a means for achieving public ownership of the means of production through nationalization of industry. This was intended to be a transitional phase in the process of building a socialist economy. The goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists and consolidate industry so that profit would go toward public finance rather than private fortune. Nationalization would be the first step in a long-term process of socializing production..." So there still may be private capital, prices, money, and other things like redistribution in a state socialist country. Even if they eventually want to transition to pure socialism.
- otalp 9y agoVenezuela is very far from the government he prefers. In fact it's close to the exact opposite, since he's an an anarchist and vocal critic of Lenin and Stalin. He however supports the rights of Latin American countries to elect their own government over CIA backed dictators who privatise resources and funnel out a country's wealth. The fact that social democratic countries in Latin America have overall had better development than extreme free market societies like haiti or pre-socialist Brazil is pretty widely accepted, dutch disease inflicted Venezuela notwithstanding.
- phowat 9y agoWhich social democracy is doing well here in south america? We are currently paying the price for all the post-socialist economical measures here in Brazil.It's not pretty.
- RobertoG 9y agoAs I have some Brazilian friends that disagree with you I went to the statistic data and it doesn't look so bad. For instance,the poverty headcount: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.NAHC?locations=BR http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.NAHC?locations=BR Specially against this one, a growing population: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=BR http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=BR
- njs12345 9y agoEcuador didn't do too badly under Correa: http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/ecuador-2017-02.pdf http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/ecuador-2017-02.pdf
- avip 9y ago[EDITed to leave only the point I'm confident about] a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy
- myopicgoat 9y agoAs much as Chomsky may have been incorrect, I think it is foolish to call him "depressingly ignorant" without justifying your statement. His international recognition both in his field and in his commentaries did not appear out of nowhere.
- avip 9y agoI think I could justify it... but it'll take some work, and is unlikely to ignite any sort of productive discussion - so I'll just edit that out.
- smithsmith 9y agoHow to define a nonscientific problem. There is none. All sociology problems are related to psychology that is related to biology which is related to chemistry which is related to physics which is related to math. https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/
- psyc 9y agoThis seems to be the theory of multiple intelligences + g-factor denialism + credentialism taken to an absurd extreme. I see this idea used so often in arguments, I think it ought to be a formal fallacy. I'll call it Silo Fallacy for now. The idea that Einstein was as capable of making an argument outside his lane as the person on the street is ridiculous enough, but Chomsky identifies as a "public intellectual" - that is his lane.
- avip 9y agoI'm not very proficient with the "theories" you've mentioned. I'm more into facts. The quote is not offensive and is not about Chomsky. Personally, I find it empirically true. YMMV
- eighthnate 9y ago> However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this. Doesn't the problems with state socialism result from being attack by state capitalism which tend to be much stronger nations? The US and europe attacking venezuela and blaming their failures on state socialism is like blaming democracy for ukraine's loss of crimea. When larger nations bully smaller nations, smaller nations suffer. We can never truly ascertain the merits of socialism, capitalism or any other ism really because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The chinese and their state socialism has been the most successful nation the past 40 years after the US decided to play nice with them.
- ant6n 9y agoChina is not a socialist country.
- Synaesthesia 9y agoThe point is not so much that these countries are socialist, I agree they’re not, although they have some aspects of socialism. The point is they’re not integrated into the western system. That’s the big distinction or cause of schism.
- jack9 9y agoI'm not sure how that statement can be taken seriously. Puppet leaders of industry, are extensions of the party. The ability to act independently isn't much different than the leeway given to a US executive agency head. Socialism isn't ever absolute...as if the Nordic Model isn't "socialist" either.
- eighthnate 9y agoThey are more socialist than capitalist. Besides, there is no pure socialist or capitalist society on earth. Using that logic, the US isn't a capitalist nation and venezuela isn't a socialist nation. And the guy's assertion that venezuela is suffereing because of state socialism is pointless. China and venezuela are both socialist countries. You can't just decide to accept one because it fits into your worldview and reject the other because it doesn't.
- Frogolocalypse 9y agoAn argument about socialism requires all parties to understand the actual definition of socialism. That is further than most peoples understanding of government.
- Synaesthesia 9y agoActually under Chavez a lot of improvements were made thanks to state socialism. Chomsky’s position in Venezuela currently is that it has a lot of problems, and he’s criticized the authoritative directions the government has taken, but he believes the US should be trying to help, and not start fires there.
- balance_factor 9y agoI'm not sure what you mean by how "he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela". When Chavez was first elected, Chomsky noted how the oil wealth of Venezuela was finally being shared beyond a small coterie of wealthy European descendants, and was now accessible to the poor and working class Venezuelans of various races. Then six years ago, Chomsky said in an open letter that the Venezuelan government was beginning to take measures that were an "assault on democracy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-h... ). I don't know how Chomsky "has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela". Do you think these two reactions he had to events in Venezuela were incorrect? Insofar as human rights, Chomsky saw respect for them beginning to dip six years ago, and reacted accordingly. I should note that eight years ago, Honduras had its first left-leaning president in living memory ousted by a coup from US-trained, US-funded military officers, after which, the US stood alone being supportive of the coup against virtually all other Latin American nations. Actually Wikileaks cables show the US knew what was going on and how they supported this. Elections were scheduled for 2013 and dozens of candidates and supporters were killed. The murder rate of Honduras has exploded, as has immigration from it. You never hear it in the US news though, unless unaccompanied Honduran chidlren appear at the border, and then you never hear why, just arguments between the Trumpites and anti-Trumpites about what to do with them. Insofar as Venezuela's economy, it has been similar to other economies heavily dependent on energy. Including the energy-dependent areas of the US economy that voted heavily for Trump. It is why Venezuelan minister Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo helped found OPEC in 1960. Venezuela had decades of an up and down economy along with the price of oil before Chavez came along.
- epx 9y agoHe made some stupid comments about privatization in Brazil in the 1990s. He never lived here, he did not know the absolute mess that Brazil was before the tenure of president FHC. He seems to think that state bureaucracy, inefficiency, inflation, public spending and privileges of public servants are problems so minor that can be ignored. Chomsky is intelligent and points real problems in USA and capitalism, but he is not infinitely intelligent and should not put the weight of his name in things that he does not have any first-hand experience, because it is damaging. Already some hard-left local people cite Chomsky and call it a day, along with the young lefties that think that Brazil was a paradise until the 1980s.
- thomasfortes 9y agoBrazil was a mess, but it simply makes zero sense to say that the young lefties thinks that our country was a paradise under a right wing military dictatorship, most of them agrees that our country was always riddled with corruption, bureaucracy and a ton of other problems. On the aspect of privatization, some of that was necessary, but the main criticism is not about the privatization per se, but the way it was handled, giving strategic companies for almost nothing. If you want to criticize the left, please don't resort to lies just because most of the HN aren't brazilians.
- epx 9y agoyou have a different opinion than mine, it does not make me a liar.
- thomasfortes 9y agoWhen you say that young lefties thinks that Brazil was a paradise during a time when a right wing military dictatorship ruled the country, you are stating a fact that simply isn't true, not an opinion. And to be honest, a lot of young right wingers are the ones that miss the dictatorship and say that the country was better in that time, in which case what you said couldn't be more distant from the reality.