3 ms·

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 b

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.
- satisfaction 6y ago
  He would call the new single party in control libertarian socialists. Currently the Democratic party is closest to that dream vision. Clearly the shortest path to a country ruled by libertarian socialists is to empower the current democratic party then transform them from the inside.

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.
satisfaction 6y ago
He would call the new single party in control libertarian socialists. Currently the Democratic party is closest to that dream vision. Clearly the shortest path to a country ruled by libertarian socialists is to empower the current democratic party then transform them from the inside.