7 ms·

Noam Chomsky: The world is at the most dangerous moment in human history

10 points by susam 6y ago

knaq 6y ago
Heh, he says that "every scenario that they can think of except a Trump victory leads to civil war". It sounds like he is pleading for people to support Trump. :-) Then later, "Chomsky urged US leftists to vote for Biden in this November’s presidential election". Uh, what??? He said that would lead to civil war. He wants civil war?
- ncmncm 6y ago
  You get civil war if Trump loses and refuses to leave office, and his personal security apparatus sticks by him. If he wins, we get permanent fascist dictatorship, now with nukes and fine-grained universal surveillance. Which is the better bet?
  - ArkVark 6y ago
    I struggle to see anything Fascist about Donald Trump. I'm significantly more concerned about the role of BLM, woke politics, and the rise of Leftist racism, which is basically part and parcel of modern Democrats.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      It's grasping at straws to push the fascist label for Donald Trump. Right-wing populist? Sure. Mussolini? No. The media didn't pipe up much about Obama who used executive orders like they were going out of style. The mass immigrant deportations, extrajudicial targeted assassinations, etc.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Obama signed fewer executive orders than any President since Grover Cleveland. Our current officeholder is catching up, in his one (only?) term.
        gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        Ok, if it's not a matter of quantity, surely it's indisputable that Obama normalized the idea that if Congress "fails to act" it's completely fair game to break the rules and legislate from the oval office.
        JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Maybe off by a president or two - Bush started breaking the rules by making all his judicial appointments between sessions as 'emergencies' to avoid Congressional oversight.
        gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        No one is innocent here, it’s just you find people who were vocal in the past just seem weirdly quiet when the administration changes.
        JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Just that some invented the crimes, and then exercised them egregiously. And there's a pattern to that.
  - satisfaction 6y ago
    Congress would not listen to him if he locked himself in the oval office. It would be pointless. Even if he has a few guys with guns stick with him, I think the congress would order the capital police to remove him, at that point he would not be president he would just be a dude locked in the white house.
    - evan_ 6y ago
      What, over the last 4 years, has given you even the inkling of a thought that the Republican-led Senate is willing to, or even capable of standing up to Trump? Trump refusing to leave is what they want, they will do everything they can to ensure that it happens. I'm aware of the meme "well the senate will change" but... what if they just don't want to either?
- satisfaction 6y ago
  I've watched several of his recent interviews, he is clearly entered a period of accelerated aging and having trouble putting coherent thoughts together, a la biden, trump et al. But to your point, yes, he wants civil war OR any scenario that results in his chosen political religion to become dominant. Most reasonable people think more political parties would be beneficial, Noam and those of his tribe want a single party system like china where they are in control.
  - agalunar 6y ago
    > Noam [...] want[s] a single party system like China where they are in control. What? Chomsky is an anarchist, and refers to himself as a libertarian socialist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
    - souprock 6y ago
      If he were, then he wouldn't support government regulation to reduce CO2 production. That is something to consider when judging his claim to be against authoritarian government. It seems he thinks government is only authoritarian when it does things he dislikes, but it's not authoritarian when it orders everybody to obey rules that he approves of. We call this "hypocrisy".
      - agalunar 6y ago
        > If he were, then he wouldn't support government regulation to reduce CO2 production. I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If you view climate change as an imminent and catastrophic threat, I think it's pragmatic rather than hypocritical to use existing regulatory powers to help solve the issue, while simultaneously arguing that it shouldn't be necessary to have centralized power in the first place. And libertarian socialism (and anarchism in general) isn't unilaterally opposed to government; it just insists that power (monetary or political) be decentralized. I expect that most libertarian socialists recognize this is a big leap from our present situation, and so start by tackling what they see as the biggest problems first (which may indeed be corporate rather than political power). I'll let Chomsky speak for himself; here he describes the core of anarachist thinking: "[Anarchist thinking is] generally based on the idea that hierarchic and authoritarian structures are not self-justifying. They have to have a justification. So if there is a relation of subordination and domination, maybe you can justify it, but there’s a strong burden of proof on anybody who tries to justify it. Quite commonly, the justification can’t be given. It’s a relationship that is maintained by obedience, by force, by tradition, by one or another form of sometimes physical, sometimes intellectual or moral coercion. If so, it ought to be dismantled. People ought to become liberated and discover that they are under a form of oppression which is illegitimate, and move to dismantle it." > That is something to consider when judging his claim to be against authoritarian government. It seems he thinks government is only authoritarian when it does things he dislikes, but it's not authoritarian when it orders everybody to obey rules that he approves of. This may very well be the case; I'd need to do some research to (potentially) refute it. > We call this "hypocrisy". I like the point you are bringing up; the views of public figures deserve close scrutiny and criticism. This line strikes me as a bit condescending, though.
ncmncm 6y ago
It is curious to have omitted Duterte and Erdogan from the list.

10 points by susam 6y ago

knaq 6y ago

Heh, he says that "every scenario that they can think of except a Trump victory leads to civil war". It sounds like he is pleading for people to support Trump. :-) Then later, "Chomsky urged US leftists to vote for Biden in this November’s presidential election". Uh, what??? He said that would lead to civil war. He wants civil war?

ncmncm 6y ago
You get civil war if Trump loses and refuses to leave office, and his personal security apparatus sticks by him. If he wins, we get permanent fascist dictatorship, now with nukes and fine-grained universal surveillance. Which is the better bet?
- ArkVark 6y ago
  I struggle to see anything Fascist about Donald Trump. I'm significantly more concerned about the role of BLM, woke politics, and the rise of Leftist racism, which is basically part and parcel of modern Democrats.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    It's grasping at straws to push the fascist label for Donald Trump. Right-wing populist? Sure. Mussolini? No. The media didn't pipe up much about Obama who used executive orders like they were going out of style. The mass immigrant deportations, extrajudicial targeted assassinations, etc.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Obama signed fewer executive orders than any President since Grover Cleveland. Our current officeholder is catching up, in his one (only?) term.
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        Ok, if it's not a matter of quantity, surely it's indisputable that Obama normalized the idea that if Congress "fails to act" it's completely fair game to break the rules and legislate from the oval office.
        JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Maybe off by a president or two - Bush started breaking the rules by making all his judicial appointments between sessions as 'emergencies' to avoid Congressional oversight.
        gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        No one is innocent here, it’s just you find people who were vocal in the past just seem weirdly quiet when the administration changes.
        JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Just that some invented the crimes, and then exercised them egregiously. And there's a pattern to that.
- satisfaction 6y ago
  Congress would not listen to him if he locked himself in the oval office. It would be pointless. Even if he has a few guys with guns stick with him, I think the congress would order the capital police to remove him, at that point he would not be president he would just be a dude locked in the white house.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    What, over the last 4 years, has given you even the inkling of a thought that the Republican-led Senate is willing to, or even capable of standing up to Trump? Trump refusing to leave is what they want, they will do everything they can to ensure that it happens. I'm aware of the meme "well the senate will change" but... what if they just don't want to either?
satisfaction 6y ago
I've watched several of his recent interviews, he is clearly entered a period of accelerated aging and having trouble putting coherent thoughts together, a la biden, trump et al. But to your point, yes, he wants civil war OR any scenario that results in his chosen political religion to become dominant. Most reasonable people think more political parties would be beneficial, Noam and those of his tribe want a single party system like china where they are in control.
- agalunar 6y ago
  > Noam [...] want[s] a single party system like China where they are in control. What? Chomsky is an anarchist, and refers to himself as a libertarian socialist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
  - souprock 6y ago
    If he were, then he wouldn't support government regulation to reduce CO2 production. That is something to consider when judging his claim to be against authoritarian government. It seems he thinks government is only authoritarian when it does things he dislikes, but it's not authoritarian when it orders everybody to obey rules that he approves of. We call this "hypocrisy".
    - agalunar 6y ago
      > If he were, then he wouldn't support government regulation to reduce CO2 production. I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If you view climate change as an imminent and catastrophic threat, I think it's pragmatic rather than hypocritical to use existing regulatory powers to help solve the issue, while simultaneously arguing that it shouldn't be necessary to have centralized power in the first place. And libertarian socialism (and anarchism in general) isn't unilaterally opposed to government; it just insists that power (monetary or political) be decentralized. I expect that most libertarian socialists recognize this is a big leap from our present situation, and so start by tackling what they see as the biggest problems first (which may indeed be corporate rather than political power). I'll let Chomsky speak for himself; here he describes the core of anarachist thinking: "[Anarchist thinking is] generally based on the idea that hierarchic and authoritarian structures are not self-justifying. They have to have a justification. So if there is a relation of subordination and domination, maybe you can justify it, but there’s a strong burden of proof on anybody who tries to justify it. Quite commonly, the justification can’t be given. It’s a relationship that is maintained by obedience, by force, by tradition, by one or another form of sometimes physical, sometimes intellectual or moral coercion. If so, it ought to be dismantled. People ought to become liberated and discover that they are under a form of oppression which is illegitimate, and move to dismantle it." > That is something to consider when judging his claim to be against authoritarian government. It seems he thinks government is only authoritarian when it does things he dislikes, but it's not authoritarian when it orders everybody to obey rules that he approves of. This may very well be the case; I'd need to do some research to (potentially) refute it. > We call this "hypocrisy". I like the point you are bringing up; the views of public figures deserve close scrutiny and criticism. This line strikes me as a bit condescending, though.

ncmncm 6y ago

It is curious to have omitted Duterte and Erdogan from the list.