3 ms·

> central planning If they hear that then they must not know that Chomsky has spent his life arguing against central planning and "technocracy." He's literally

> central planning If they hear that then they must not know that Chomsky has spent his life arguing against central planning and "technocracy." He's literally an anarchist. [1] [1]. https://chomsky.info/19760725/ https://chomsky.info/19760725/

tome 6y ago
Yes, most likely most people reading that would not know that about Chomsky.
aww_dang 6y ago
This lacks nuance for me. >"CHOMSKY: Let me just say I don’t really regard myself as an anarchist thinker." https://books.google.com/books/about/Internationalism_Or_Extinction.html?id=o3zADwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y https://books.google.com/books/about/Internationalism_Or_Ext... From the summary of: "Internationalism or Extinction", his new book. >The introduction and accompanying interviews place these dual threats in a framework of unprecedented corporate global power which has overtaken nation states’ ability to control the future and preserve the planet. Chomsky argues for the urgency of international climate and arms agreements, showing how global popular movements are mobilizing to force governments to meet this unprecedented challenge to civilization’s survival. He's an anarchist who doesn't regard himself as an "anarchist thinker". He's against central planning, but laments the state's failing ability to "control the future and preserve the planet". He argues for supranational governance to protect civilization. The proposed solutions seem at odds with the assertion that he is against central planning. I'm not sure if it is fair to define him as an ideologue within narrow political terms. Perhaps it is a case of pragmatism overtaking ideals?
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > He's an anarchist who doesn't regard himself as an "anarchist thinker". I don't really think this means anything. Marx: "I am not a Marxist", C.S. Peirce renamed his views to "pragmaticism" to distance himself from pragmatists of which he is one, we generally agree today. > but laments the state's failing ability to "control the future and preserve the planet" Does he? Or is this just a statement of fact? I also think governments have lost control and I would most certainly not argue for any central planning or even governments in the sense of what we have today. > He argues for supranational governance to protect civilization Does he? I haven't read this book and it's not in the summary. > Perhaps it is a case of pragmatism overtaking ideals? Maybe, if he has indeed changed his position significantly. Many anarchists don't consider him an anarchist anymore either, so it wouldn't be the most surprising thing. On the other hand, last year at IAI he is summarized as having said "the authority of the state is bad – it leads to tyranny. Anarchism is the way forward." [1] If you look at the 10 minute mark of the linked video, he argues that authority harms the current situation. [1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDoXb1_CbQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDoXb1_CbQU
brodouevencode 6y ago
Don’t follow what he claims, follow how he acts.

tome 6y ago

Yes, most likely most people reading that would not know that about Chomsky.

aww_dang 6y ago

This lacks nuance for me. >"CHOMSKY: Let me just say I don’t really regard myself as an anarchist thinker." https://books.google.com/books/about/Internationalism_Or_Extinction.html?id=o3zADwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y https://books.google.com/books/about/Internationalism_Or_Ext... From the summary of: "Internationalism or Extinction", his new book. >The introduction and accompanying interviews place these dual threats in a framework of unprecedented corporate global power which has overtaken nation states’ ability to control the future and preserve the planet. Chomsky argues for the urgency of international climate and arms agreements, showing how global popular movements are mobilizing to force governments to meet this unprecedented challenge to civilization’s survival. He's an anarchist who doesn't regard himself as an "anarchist thinker". He's against central planning, but laments the state's failing ability to "control the future and preserve the planet". He argues for supranational governance to protect civilization. The proposed solutions seem at odds with the assertion that he is against central planning. I'm not sure if it is fair to define him as an ideologue within narrow political terms. Perhaps it is a case of pragmatism overtaking ideals?

guerrilla 6y ago
> He's an anarchist who doesn't regard himself as an "anarchist thinker". I don't really think this means anything. Marx: "I am not a Marxist", C.S. Peirce renamed his views to "pragmaticism" to distance himself from pragmatists of which he is one, we generally agree today. > but laments the state's failing ability to "control the future and preserve the planet" Does he? Or is this just a statement of fact? I also think governments have lost control and I would most certainly not argue for any central planning or even governments in the sense of what we have today. > He argues for supranational governance to protect civilization Does he? I haven't read this book and it's not in the summary. > Perhaps it is a case of pragmatism overtaking ideals? Maybe, if he has indeed changed his position significantly. Many anarchists don't consider him an anarchist anymore either, so it wouldn't be the most surprising thing. On the other hand, last year at IAI he is summarized as having said "the authority of the state is bad – it leads to tyranny. Anarchism is the way forward." [1] If you look at the 10 minute mark of the linked video, he argues that authority harms the current situation. [1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDoXb1_CbQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDoXb1_CbQU

brodouevencode 6y ago

Don’t follow what he claims, follow how he acts.