/lit/ - Literature

>>6616247
>So you are claiming:
>>>"..under Capitalism we can't have Democracy..."
>>>Or
>>>"...Capitalism is not fit for the modern world..."
>>or
>>>"...Capitalism [is] a new and unanticipated system of injustice..."
>are NOT Chomsky quotes?
>You suck at lying.

I don't know if those are quotes or not, but I wasn't disputing them. What I asked whether it was a direct quote or not was the earlier stated 'Capitalism is fascism,' and as it turns out I was right to suspect it wasn't.

Don't you think you should apologize for calling me a liar?

>>6616179
>So - are you agreeing his conning the gullible is brilliant?

I agree that he's brilliant; I don't think he's conning anybody.

>>6616177
>Cooperation with evil in the act of evil is evil.

So if you pay taxes to pay for evil acts, you are evil?

>If Chomsky believes the Pentagon is evil (which he has) and that the wars it wages are morally wrong (which he has) then assisting them in their wars (which he's done) is morally wrong.

That depends on the nature of his work. Regardless, it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

>Of course, my point is that this just proves Chomsky is a liar and a hypocrite (which he has admitted)

When did he admit this?

>>6616169
>when I use quotes from his works you ask me to...
>...use quotes.
>At this point I think you're just trolling.

I'm not. If you had used actual quotes to begin with, I wouldn't have said anything.

>Since I can pick up one of his books and read for myself that he does not think civilization can survive Capitalism. I can read the direct quotes I gave you. Who should I believe about what he said, you? Or him?

You should believe that he has said what you read or hear him say, not what someone paraphrases.

>>6616066
>So your rather weird interpretation of his clear meaning is not supproted by reading his other works.

My reading is sound. The fact remains that he didn't say what you ascribed to him. He's said a lot. Use quotes.

>In sin =/= with sin. I don't think you're very educated on Christianity, so I wouldn't engage with me in opposition on that topic unless you just want to learn something.

What I said is it is not really hypocrisy. He is critical of military policy. He doesn't set it.

>Like I said - he's bold. And I think it is absolutely brilliant

Agreed.

>>6615880
>Harris didn't get BTFO'd as badly as a lot of /lit/ thinks. Chomsky was mostly just being defensive and completely dodging the spirit of the discussion Harris wanted to have, instead focusing on nit picking errors in Harris's reading of him.

Harris got a 'Property of Chomsky' tattoo on his ass, no doubt.

>>6615865
>Read it again: he is speaking of the system of Capitalism, not corporations.

He is speaking about the deleterious effects of corporate influence on democracy. Which is pretty well established. He may describe himself as a libertarian socialist, but this doesn't mean he has to give away all his possessions. He lives in a capitalist society.

>Does it matter when his grant applications were sent to, reviewed by, approved by, and paid by the Pentagon?
>You still are not discussing his long-time work with corporations (remember them , from your own post which this is a response to?) to make their marketing more effective while calling it propaganda.

Yes. There is no real hypocrisy in working for the military and being critical of military policy. Lots of soldiers do it. It's the same with corporations. It would be worse to feel as he does and not say anything for the love of a paycheck.

>We could branch out to his defense of the Khmer Rouge, if you like.

After you.

>>6615450
>Paraphrase of a rather famous quote

It's a poor paraphrasing, though. Corporate interests DO exert outsize influence over our democratic process. This doesn't really reduce to 'Capitalism is fascism,' though.

>Chomsky called theUS military 'One of the most evil institutions in world history'. He wrote the U.S. Army is 'a menace to all life on earth' and 'the most hideous institution on Earth'. And that's just in one book.

Did he say the military, or the pentagon? Which is to say, the policymakers, as I said?

>Try again

Do.

>>6614296
>Also- not talking about How Chomsky has tax attorneys, tax accountants, trusts, etc. then charges thousand of dollars (plus airfare and lodging!) to tell college kids 'Capitalism is fascism'

Is that a direct quote?

>>6614022
>Proven - you either haven't read him much or you're a fucking liar

I haven't read that much of him, I prefer to listen to him speak. Tons of stuff available on iTunes, btw.

But I think you and others are falling for a deceptive reduction. He's not critical of the military, he is critical of the US foreign policy that uses the military for it's ends. This is a pretty crucial and readily appreciable difference. Right?

I think it's a pretty good list, actually. People can quibble about the rankings or whatever, but their are no 'bad' books up there.

Whoever put it together deserves more gratitude than he's getting.

>>6613546
>>6613587

I don't really know how much of what is said against him is true. But even if it's ALL true, I don't think it amounts to the kind of hypocrisy his critics would like to imagine. He's not critical of the military; he's critical of US policy. Do you have any evidence that he sets the policy he opposes? Because that would be hypocrisy.

>>6610812

You should google the interview Bachem Macuno did with him. Very enlightening.

>>6611201
>The best is probably the book Do As I Say (Not a As I Do); well-footnoted and acknowledged by Chomsky as accurate.

But the charge itself is silly. It's not Chomsky's fault the Pentagon funds MIT. It's not like he interviewed for a job working for the military as Noam Chomsky Inc., the way his critics want to make out.

>>6605966
how is it? I wanted to buy it but it's mad expensive on amazon

I'm sure the movie will make it out like they have some great connection, like they completed each other, but reading the book you got the clear idea DFW was just buttering the guy enough to where he wouldn't fuck him hard in the piece. He's aware that he's at the guy's mercy in the Rolling Stone piece (that wasn't).

Plenty of Dostoyevsky, plenty of Vollmann.

>>6605034

Have you read The Great Shark Hunt or Hell's Angels? I'd read either first, unless there is something esp. alluring about the tall grass of the '72 campaign.

>>6605034

Have you read The Great Shark Hunt or Hell's Angels?

He seems like a uniquely American genius. I wonder what folks in other countries think of him.

>>6604325
That passage opens The Pale King, if I'm not mistaken.

There are lots of passages in Infinite Jest I like more; just remarkable turns of phrase and casual high-level cleverness.

I think it's the key book to read of its generation, though a lot of folks prefer to read other generations' key works of fiction.

>>6604111
>You're missing the whole point. If you want everyone to have a name, there are literally hundreds of forums (like Reddit) where you may go have that. 4chan is almost the only place anywhere where everyone agrees to be anonymous. This is why everyone has a problem with you.

Then why does the option for a name exist?

This is now a Bachem thread

>>6604103

No, you've done that. Take some responsibility for yourself. My posts have either been on-topic or responses to your off-topic comments to me. Only a child would deny it.