5 ms·

> the secret powers that may be I think this is a concept inserted by a lot of Chomsky nay-sayers. I don't recall that being part of the worldview. My limited

> the secret powers that may be I think this is a concept inserted by a lot of Chomsky nay-sayers. I don't recall that being part of the worldview. My limited reading and viewing has left me with the impression, perhaps more disturbing, that there is no secret power. This really is just how people behave, and to really understand what's happening in real time, so that better interventions can be made, is going to take whole new fields of study. I think the solutions of anarchism or communism that some Chomskyites put forward are mainly bold attempts to add those vectors into the other much larger vectors that are already present in the public debate and tend to make the space appear very inhospitable to alternative view points. Much like Aaron described, the world seems very lonely afterwards, and hearing a shout in the distance is very welcome to the man alone in the desert.

Jun8 14y ago
Although I cannot site specific examples from Chomsky right now (wish I had books other than programmin ones at work, but it may freak out my colleagues) I find that belief in a "secret coalition" is as common in the left as it is in the right. This is understandable, because people don't want to believe the alternate (and, I think, much more correct) idea that you have mentioned, i.e. "This really is just how people behave." It's much easier to believe that some powers are manipulating people. For the record, I'm not a Chomsky nay-sayer, any intelligent person's (and he's brilliant, of course) opinion needs to be taken into account to update our worldview. It's just that the extremity of some of his positions (in linguistics, too) has made me lower the weight I use while I incorporate his views in the periodic update of my worldview on things.
- lukifer 14y ago
  There is an inclination for those suspicious of mass media to believe in a shadow government, etc, pulling the strings of social control. The reality is more disturbing: for the most part, so-called elites conduct their business completely openly, shouting their intentions from the mountaintops, albeit sometimes masked in code, or through narrative framing.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  To some extent I would find a shadowy conspiracy more comforting than what I perceive to be the truth: That plenty of intelligent people do considerable damage to the world without it being their intention. At least a shadowy conspiracy sounds like it would be relatively easy to fix.
- calibraxis 14y ago
  I suggest reading _Understanding Power_ (the book Aaron Swartz recommended). He's against conspiracy theories, and instead uses institutional analysis. Sorry for the wall of text: "It’s precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory, actually—in fact, in general this analysis tends to downplay the role of individuals: they’re just replaceable pieces. "Look, part of the structure of corporate capitalism is that the players in the game try to increase profits and market shares—if they don’t do that, they will no longer be players in the game. Any economist knows this: it’s not a conspiracy theory to point that out, it’s just taken for granted as an institutional fact. If someone were to say, “Oh no, that’s a conspiracy theory,” people would laugh. Well, what we’ve been discussing are simply the institutional factors that set the boundaries for reporting and interpretation in the ideological institutions. That’s the opposite of conspiracy theory, it’s just normal institutional analysis, the kind of analysis you do automatically when you’re trying to understand how the world works. For people to call it “conspiracy theory” is part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works, in my view—“conspiracy theory” has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it’s something people say when they don’t want you to think about what’s really going on." [...] "Well, this term “conspiracy theory” is kind of an interesting one. For example, if I was talking about Soviet planning and I said, “Look, here’s what the Politburo decided, and then the Kremlin did this,” nobody would call that a “conspiracy theory” — everyone would just assume that I was talking about planning. But as soon as you start talking about anything that’s done by power in the West, then everybody calls it a “conspiracy theory.” You’re not allowed to talk about planning in the West, it’s not allowed to exist. So if you’re a political scientist, one of the things you learn—you don’t even make it into graduate school unless you’ve already internalized it—is that nobody here ever plans anything: we just act out of a kind of general benevolence, stumbling from here to here, sometimes making mistakes and so on. The guys in power aren’t idiots, after all. They do planning. In fact, they do very careful and sophisticated planning. But anybody who talks about it, and uses government records or anything else to back it up, is into “conspiracy theory.” "It’s the same with business: business is again just operating out of a generalized benevolence, trying to help everybody get the cheapest goods with the best quality, all this kind of stuff. If you say: “Look, Chrysler is trying to maximize profits and market share,” that’s “conspiracy theory.” In other words, as soon as you describe elementary reality and attribute minimal rationality to people with power—well, that’s fine as long as it’s an enemy, but if it’s a part of domestic power, it’s a “conspiracy theory” and you’re not supposed to talk about it."
rdtsc 14y ago
> there is no secret power Yap and I think mixing Chomsky up with conspiracy theorists and building straw men arguments is a common tactic of those who are ideologically minded and want to protect their preconceived notions. "Chomsky is a commy nut", "CNN isn't in cahoots with Walmart and FBI, he is just crazy". The point to take home, I think, is that there are rules and assumptions built into the system that make it evolve in a certain way. There aren't necessarily heads of state and corporations sitting down in dark basement and scheming against the poor and the weak. Now this doesn't mean the rules cannot be changed. It just means there isn't one central surface of attack. Like "well if we just replace all these people, things will fix themselves" one sort of has chip away and find what incentive and rewards there are. However, this also doesn't mean that individuals who are part of the system and play by its rules even when that is at odds with basic morality (like in the case of Aaron) shouldn't bear responsibility. Both approaches should be taken.

Jun8 14y ago

Although I cannot site specific examples from Chomsky right now (wish I had books other than programmin ones at work, but it may freak out my colleagues) I find that belief in a "secret coalition" is as common in the left as it is in the right. This is understandable, because people don't want to believe the alternate (and, I think, much more correct) idea that you have mentioned, i.e. "This really is just how people behave." It's much easier to believe that some powers are manipulating people. For the record, I'm not a Chomsky nay-sayer, any intelligent person's (and he's brilliant, of course) opinion needs to be taken into account to update our worldview. It's just that the extremity of some of his positions (in linguistics, too) has made me lower the weight I use while I incorporate his views in the periodic update of my worldview on things.

lukifer 14y ago
There is an inclination for those suspicious of mass media to believe in a shadow government, etc, pulling the strings of social control. The reality is more disturbing: for the most part, so-called elites conduct their business completely openly, shouting their intentions from the mountaintops, albeit sometimes masked in code, or through narrative framing.
jacquesm 14y ago
To some extent I would find a shadowy conspiracy more comforting than what I perceive to be the truth: That plenty of intelligent people do considerable damage to the world without it being their intention. At least a shadowy conspiracy sounds like it would be relatively easy to fix.
calibraxis 14y ago
I suggest reading _Understanding Power_ (the book Aaron Swartz recommended). He's against conspiracy theories, and instead uses institutional analysis. Sorry for the wall of text: "It’s precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory, actually—in fact, in general this analysis tends to downplay the role of individuals: they’re just replaceable pieces. "Look, part of the structure of corporate capitalism is that the players in the game try to increase profits and market shares—if they don’t do that, they will no longer be players in the game. Any economist knows this: it’s not a conspiracy theory to point that out, it’s just taken for granted as an institutional fact. If someone were to say, “Oh no, that’s a conspiracy theory,” people would laugh. Well, what we’ve been discussing are simply the institutional factors that set the boundaries for reporting and interpretation in the ideological institutions. That’s the opposite of conspiracy theory, it’s just normal institutional analysis, the kind of analysis you do automatically when you’re trying to understand how the world works. For people to call it “conspiracy theory” is part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works, in my view—“conspiracy theory” has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it’s something people say when they don’t want you to think about what’s really going on." [...] "Well, this term “conspiracy theory” is kind of an interesting one. For example, if I was talking about Soviet planning and I said, “Look, here’s what the Politburo decided, and then the Kremlin did this,” nobody would call that a “conspiracy theory” — everyone would just assume that I was talking about planning. But as soon as you start talking about anything that’s done by power in the West, then everybody calls it a “conspiracy theory.” You’re not allowed to talk about planning in the West, it’s not allowed to exist. So if you’re a political scientist, one of the things you learn—you don’t even make it into graduate school unless you’ve already internalized it—is that nobody here ever plans anything: we just act out of a kind of general benevolence, stumbling from here to here, sometimes making mistakes and so on. The guys in power aren’t idiots, after all. They do planning. In fact, they do very careful and sophisticated planning. But anybody who talks about it, and uses government records or anything else to back it up, is into “conspiracy theory.” "It’s the same with business: business is again just operating out of a generalized benevolence, trying to help everybody get the cheapest goods with the best quality, all this kind of stuff. If you say: “Look, Chrysler is trying to maximize profits and market share,” that’s “conspiracy theory.” In other words, as soon as you describe elementary reality and attribute minimal rationality to people with power—well, that’s fine as long as it’s an enemy, but if it’s a part of domestic power, it’s a “conspiracy theory” and you’re not supposed to talk about it."

rdtsc 14y ago

> there is no secret power Yap and I think mixing Chomsky up with conspiracy theorists and building straw men arguments is a common tactic of those who are ideologically minded and want to protect their preconceived notions. "Chomsky is a commy nut", "CNN isn't in cahoots with Walmart and FBI, he is just crazy". The point to take home, I think, is that there are rules and assumptions built into the system that make it evolve in a certain way. There aren't necessarily heads of state and corporations sitting down in dark basement and scheming against the poor and the weak. Now this doesn't mean the rules cannot be changed. It just means there isn't one central surface of attack. Like "well if we just replace all these people, things will fix themselves" one sort of has chip away and find what incentive and rewards there are. However, this also doesn't mean that individuals who are part of the system and play by its rules even when that is at odds with basic morality (like in the case of Aaron) shouldn't bear responsibility. Both approaches should be taken.