/lit/ - Literature

He should have sticked to linguistics IMO

>>462833

This.

bump

>well everybody knows what happend so i dont have to developpe this
he'd have made a great mathematician.

>>462833
Thank you. I completely agree.

"I don't understand the fundamentals of economics."
- Noam Chomsky

>>462938
agreed anon.
fuck chomsky, goddamned marxist/socialist/liberal cunt.

>>463132
No, fuck off.

Marxism is not taking this load of shit. We have a coherent research methodology and internal standards of criticism, and Chomsky does not meet the disciplinary requirements.

OP, chomsky always has copious footnotes so yur claim that he never gives the reader a source or the foundation is dubious at best

>>462938
and this is supposed to mean what exactly

I love how a single sentence of 7 words is supposed to prove or disprove...what?

>>462938
hard mode: quote and cite his support for those regimes

protip: you can't

>>463132
Death panels are real

I prefered him in L4D2

>>464369
Yes, "Christian Science Monitor" for three hundred footnotes straight was so impressive in /At war with Asia/.

>>464403
what's wrong with the christian science monitor?

i haven't read anything by him, and diversity among sources is good to have, but i enjoy the Christian science Monitor and it's relatively unbiased and usually a reliable source of information.

>>464462
Nothing as a newspaper, but relying on A SINGLE SOURCE that publishes immediate NEWS for 300 footnotes straight (is it really that much, Historian?) you're just being lazy and reckless.

>>464655
well if they're the ones reporting it

>>464662
I'm sure the information exists somewhere else in the world, with a bit more chronological remove and probably a bit less every other type, than in an American newspaper.

CSM's the newspaper I prefer, but relying on it for your main source in a book? Either just say fuck it and just write the damn thing or source it properly.

>>464670
If you're writing about current events, how do you propose he go about sourcing things? Wait 10 years for another academic to write a book about it, then cite that?

>>464662
Trust me, you don't want to question HISTORIAN. The man will school you hard.

I particularly enjoyed watching a debate between Richard Holbrooke and Chomsky. Chomsky gave his usual determinist speil on history and Holbrooke was just like, look dude, you're assuming we always know what we're doing. We don't.

>>464679
predictable outcomes
unchanging policies from administration to administration, decade to decade, century to century

>>464373

Uh, the message is pretty clear, and if you need more than those 7 words to understand it, you're dumb.

The message is that he has a history of supporting leaders who turn out to be pretty bad dudes, and therefore has shitty judgement in such matters, and therefore his support of Chavez should be viewed with skepticism.

I'm not saying I agree with the message, but it is pretty obvious.

>>464679
the debate with Richard Perle is hilarious. Perle quickly finds himself out of his depth, resorts to smartarse responses and denying & dismissing anything Chomsky says.
Then theres the one with the Boston University guy, who just keeps shouting Chomsky down and comparing the Sandinistas to Hitler.

>>464688
>The message is that he has a history of supporting leaders who turn out to be pretty bad dude
Who? Is this that stupid cartoon again?
Well I said it before and I'll say it again:
Hard Mode: quote and cite.
Pro-tip: you can't.

>>464696

Did you, like, read my post at all or look at the post I was replying to?

>>464688
I don't think you quite understood, this quote "I don't understand the fundamentals of economics." allegedly attributed to Mr Chomsky used as a blanket dismissal of everything Chomsky.
What precisely is it supposed to mean? And looking at his writings on economics would suggest that in fact he understand a few things.

>>464703

Oh, I thought you were referring to the comic. But yeah, throwing that quote out with absolutely zero context is pretty cheap and pointless.

>>464702
Yes. Where has he supported Mao, Mihn, Castro, Pol Pot.

Also I googled the quote, there are two results: this thread and a blog called The Pragmatic Capitalist. They do not attribute it to Chomsky it is simply a line in a comment entry, its the persons own opinion of their understanding of economics.
The quote "I don't understand the fundamentals of economics." attributed to Chomsky is officially declared bogus.

>>464685
>unchanging policies

Anyone who really thinks this isn't paying attention, and is probably willfully deluding themselves just as much as the people who think or thought, say, the election of Barack Obama meant the US would become some sort of post-everything glory hole for all the people its power structures have shat on, and that Bush was The Problem as opposed to just a particularly incompetent administrator.

>>464696
Not opening the thumbnail to see if he's in that image, but his sleepover and voicing of support for Hassan Nasrallah is something no one disputes.

I don't know why Noam is such great trollbait, when the truth is that nobody cares about him anyway.

>>464723
COINTELPRO: Eisenhower, Kennedy (who expanded it to include the Civil Rights Movement), Johnson, Nixon (where it included assassination)

>>464723
I did, its there, I've seen it the same collage posted before by you trolls. Keep denying and stalling and changing the subject.
Hizbollah weren't mentioned in here before but since you've decided to delay by changing the subject by bringing them up they provide a lot of social services in Lebanon, if you know a better deterrent to Israeli invasions of Lebanon a lot of people would like to hear it.

>>464727
he was on the enemies list of both Nixon and the Unabomber

>>464723

>unchanging policies

>Anyone who really thinks this isn't paying attention

The US has had pretty much the same foreign policy for the last 100 years or more; blackmail, exploitation, and forcible regime change. Read the following:

War Is a Racket by Major-General Smedley Butler

Confessions of An Economic Hitman by John Perkins

>>464742
Yes, in 1910 the United States was just aching to start foreign wars...

>>464723
whats the difference between what it was doing to Latin America from the end of the 19th century through to the early 1930s and what it was doing from after WWII to the early 1990s?
Nothing. Just different excuses.
And this is a near century of murder, torture, genocide, governments overthrown, dictatorships installed, liberties squashed. Year in year out, decade after decade.

>>464745
>I am unaware of what the USA was doing in the Caribbean and Asia in the early 20th century

>>464745

Even earlier, in fact.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

>>464749
Killing Hope has a list of everything pre-WWII, there isn't a year from 1798 to 1940 that the USA isn't involved in a conflict somewhere, often for "American interests" which often seem to be land or mines or railways...

>>464376
Hilarious. Exact same post as the last time someone posted that image in a late-night Chomsky thread. He was thoroughly debunked, but apparently survived through sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming. We clearly have a single anon who just really fuckin' loves Chomsky.

Wonder if he's the same one as the guy who thinks Shakespeare's not really shakespeare?

>>464755
what does anything you typed have to do with the post you are trying to respond to?

>>464752
1798 is when the Illuminati took control of the United States government, if I'm remembering my history right.

>>464766

>>464763
Pointing out that every time there's a Chomsky thread, the same individual leaps in to attack anyone having any kind of contradictory opinion against Chomsky. Even when it's something quite basic and worthwhile, such as pointing out that while he provides a ton of footnotes, they all tend to reference the same few sources over and over.

The sickest thing about Illuminati myths is they distract people from the bullshit oligarchy that genuinely exists.

The country/world being run by men of such genius as the Illuminati is much less scary than it being run by a bunch of greedy pricks that are really no smarter or more qualified than you or I.

>>464766
I think the freemasons had a few years in there too somewhere, definitely before the 1830s.

>>464766

Clever. You should be a comedian. There's really no comparison to conspiracy theories here, though; everything is clearly documented and you can go ahead and read about US Interventionism from the source of your choice.

>>464777
k i'll read about it from the wall street journal

lololol

>>464771

Are you saying the sources he repeatedly uses are incorrect? If not, then I really don't see your point.

>>464779

>semantics

>>464777
Alright, I'll check out bilderberg.com and read the truth about the Rothschild family and their support of the United States in its tyranny over the world for over 200 years.

>>464766
...

>>464785
>>464779

I said you could read about it from the source of your choice. If you choose an idiotic source and get no information, well, I guess that says something about you, doesn't it?

>>464771
its not a contradictory opinion, its a stupid cartoon with no basis in reality.
It used as a means of short circuiting critical thinking: oh ha ha here's Chomsky supporting all these dictators so we don't have to discuss any of this.
Except for the minor detail that he didn't.
Can I not challenge people to back it up?

>>464788
Where's your proof that they didn't?

>>464793

Give them time; apparently they're scouring bilderberg and wsj.com for evidence supporting their positions. They may be a while...

>>464655
Its been about ten years since I read /At War With Asia/. I walked away feeling disgusted due to the single sourcing. His factual assertions were all tied to CSM articles. I don't know about you, but I trust newspapers to light fires, stop weeds sprouting in garden beds, and to amuse me on long bus trips.

Just poking around the East Asian section of my bookshelf, I've noted a number of pamphlets published in my anglophone country from the period by the DRVN. Chomsky would have had access to DRVN, Laotian, Cambodian Government, French wire services. He could have telephoned a variety of Government and NGO organisations. But no, he chose to source his facts repetitively from the CSM.

>>464679
Doubt is good. But perhaps I only seem well informed, because, I don't tripfag when I am just another ignorant anonymous.

>>464780
Oh, no, don't misinterpret me. I saw what happened last time people tried honest intellectual debate with you, which was you being a humorless bitch. So now I'm just mocking you instead. Arguments on the internet and all that.

>>464799
You could attack his methods...or you could actually attack his assertions. Which you cannot do.

>>464799
>His factual assertions were all tied to CSM articles. I don't know about you, but I trust newspapers to light fires, stop weeds sprouting in garden beds, and to amuse me on long bus trips.

there's a difference between relying on the Daily Mail for your evidence and relying on CSM. You do have a point, though.

>>464802

I've never posted in a Chomsky thread before, friend. The fact is that there's nothing wrong with single-sourcing if that single source is beyond reproach. I'm not saying CSM is, but attacking single-sourcing instead of attacking the source itself is laziness.

people here are criticizing sourcing for At War With Asia, but not is content.
What is that called? Hmm...
They're also not discussing Profit Over People.

>>464802
>I saw what happened last time people tried honest intellectual debate with you
You posted a bunch of random out of context quotes as proof of his evil, none of which were evidence of support for any regimes I might add, and when their context was considered were quite simple
You're hysterical.

>>464809
He is attacking the source: he is attacking it because it's a newspaper.

Singlesourcing can be okay, but singlesourcing from a newspaper is highly dubious

>>464804
>>464807
>>464809
Methodology in the interpretive humanities is the only guarantee of the capacity to make truthful statements. Making historical claims, even if contemporary, about state function means that you are held to the disciplinary standards of history. Single sourced works are not acceptable.

If you'd like to say that /At War With Asia/ is an amusing fiction you enjoy, go ahead. If you want to claim that
a) The United States engaged in illegal bombing campaigns in the DRVN, Laos and Cambodia and that
b) Their bombing campaign in the RVN was so morally reprehensible to the laws of war in terms of the conduct the United States' armed forced should be held to

please go ahead.

If in conversation you'd like to point to the CSM to verify these claims, likewise.

If you're writing a history, as Chomsky's conceit was, and you single source, you are a cad of the lowest calibre.

In a discipline where methodology is the only guarantee of the veracity of a work, to deliberately break core methodological rules indicates a level of ingrained deception. At the time Chomsky conducted this deceptive behaviour he was a member of the academic community. At the time Chomsky conducted this deceptive behaviour, there was a moral imperative in Chomsky's political community to reveal and uncover the actions of the United States, particularly in Laos. Through unacceptable academic practice Chomsky betrayed the revolutionary left, the progressive anti-war movement and the academic humanities.

The only time I'd piss on Chomsky is if he were on fire, and I'd had a urethral catheter of inflammable liquids impregnated into my bladder.

>>464826
I warned you people. But no, you had to go and piss off HISTORIAN. Not my fault. Enjoy your raping.

>>464826
are you denying the illegal bombing?!

>>464826
.... I'm so hot now

>>464826
> ...
> fancily worded but largely meaningless attempt at character assassination of Chomsky and debunking of the methods he used in one book
> ...
Ok, fair enough. These points can be discussed and argued.

> The only time I'd piss on Chomsky is if he were on fire, and I'd had a urethral catheter of inflammable liquids impregnated into my bladder.

You lost me, bro.

>>464826
...This might just be the smartest thing I've ever seen posted on 4chan

>>464830
Ooh, yes, because someone getting an undergraduate degree in History posting on an anonymous imageboard is terrifying in their vicious attack on Chomsky, a man who has withstood 40 years of critique and is still standing tall.

>>464833
>>"If you want to claim that... The United States engaged in illegal bombing...please go ahead. ... If in conversation you'd like to point to the CSM to verify these claims, likewise."
>are you denying the illegal bombing?!

No, as I clearly indicated I suggest that you make those claims, and conversationally (wikipedia grade) verify via CSM news reports. Today, unlike in the 1960s, you have access to credible multiply sourced works about the United States bombing campaigns in South East Asia. I would prefer you use the credible histories.

>>464812

This. If I wrote a book about how the clouds are made of marshmallows and cited five otherwise reliable sources, it wouldn't somehow make the clouds turn into marshmallow; it'd still be a load of bollocks.

By the same turn, if I wrote a book stating the Earth revolves around the sun while my only source was a picture book my dog wrote in his own poo, it wouldn't make the sun and Earth suddenly decide to change places.

Tl;dr: A fact is a fact because it's a fact, not because it's written in several different sources which meet your criteria.

>>464843

thanks bro

>>464826
>At the time Chomsky conducted this deceptive behaviour he was a member of the academic community. At the time Chomsky conducted this deceptive behaviour, there was a moral imperative in Chomsky's political community to reveal and uncover the actions of the United States, particularly in Laos. Through unacceptable academic practice Chomsky betrayed the revolutionary left, the progressive anti-war movement and the academic humanities.
>At the time Chomsky conducted this deceptive behaviour he was a member of the academic community. At the time Chomsky conducted this deceptive behaviour, there was a moral imperative in Chomsky's political community to reveal and uncover the actions of the United States, particularly in Laos.
>academic community [...] political community
Its the liberal academia! They hate America! They're working with the Commies! They're brainwashing our kids! They want the Terrorists to win!

>>464826

Have you ever had the opportunity to speak with Chomsky personally? Have you emailed him? The reason I ask this is because I'm surprised that there aren't wider, more noticeable criticisms of him on this point... If you weren't a tripfag I would love to read a dialogue between the two of you. If you weren't a tripfag.

Most people simply say, 'Blah, blah, blah, he should have stuck to linguistics' -- and use that as a criticism. However, claims of inherent falsehoods in his work -- especially regarding the falsification of history -- don't seem to be very...'mainstream' criticisms of him.

>>464845
At War With Asia was written in 1970.

>>464845
>No, as I clearly indicated I suggest that you make those claims, and conversationally (wikipedia grade) verify via CSM news reports. Today, unlike in the 1960s, you have access to credible multiply sourced works about the United States bombing campaigns in South East Asia. I would prefer you use the credible histories.
Yes, we have numerous doumented sources and declassified government documents and the Pentagon Papers, all confirming it.
Not so when Chomsky wrote the book in 1970, maybe thats why he had one source?
And I still have yet to see the claims disproved.

>>464855
>If you weren't a tripfag.

lol. why should anyone give a shit about what you think if you're so gullible as to have been conditioned by FUCKING ANON.

>>464867

>>464848
Go read more history and philosophy of science, your Copernican system example is laughable. If you can't read the academic debate, then Brecht's play on the subject, /Galileo/ is very readable.

You might also want to read up on systems of knowledge, disciplinarity, and proof structures.

>>464855
I saw a video of him reading out questions from reddit members and respond, its not that hard for anyone to contact him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke6YXjaZ9HY

>>464843
If Chomsky is standing tall, why are all the undergradute libertarian socialist university students in the tutorials I'm running reading Cleaver, Zizek, Negri, Tronti, EP Thompson, etc. etc.?

I'll defer to the linguistics community on the contribution he makes within his doctoral speciality.

Chomsky's contribution to humanities is generally considered laughable by the political community he sees himself catering to.

>>464875
>Zizek, Negri

>>464836
>>> The only time I'd piss on Chomsky is if he were on fire, and I'd had a urethral catheter of inflammable liquids impregnated into my bladder.

>You lost me, bro.

Were he burning, I say "Help me, friends, for he burns too slowly."

"withstanding 40 years of criticism" my ass.

http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2001/10/08/chomsky

>>464875
the political community he calls the More Extreme and Less Extreme Factions of the Business Party? I don't think his work has ever been intended for them

>>464875

>Zizek

...Come on, Historian. You've got to be kidding. He's just as polarizing.

>>464882
>salon
ha ha ha, oh wow
>by David Horowitz
ha ha ha, oh wow
I'd fisk it, but come on: its by David Horowitz.

>>464826
You're full of horseshit to pretend that the only source cited in At War with Asia is the CSM. Completely full of horseshit. You lose all credibility right there. Any idiot with a copy of the book (apparently not many Anons) can figure that out.

Second, he wrote the book as a series of essays that appeared in a journal. They were later compiled into a book, with a large first chapter added. This chapter had many sources. The Christian Science Monitor does not make an appearance.

He personally visited the areas he wrote about and met with government and non-government employees. He was, in a sense, a journalist, not an academic. He wasn't writing a history that could look back on years of scholarship, with lots of hindsight, to figure out what happened. He was documenting the war as it stood in that moment of time.

>>464886
yeah, and Zizek's recent work (after he left nSk) is about as "good" as Chomsky's political work. But the point is even undergraduates within Chomsky's political tendency are steering clear of him.

>>464897
We dun take kindly ta them fancy "facts" 'round 'ere.
Bes' be movin' long, if I was yer.

>>464898
then they're probably doing that post-modernist bullshit

>>464883
Chomsky believes he's contributing to some kind of imaginary working class. When he "joined" the IWW he refused to be bound by union rules and avoided his meetings. Chomsky talks about large international politics rather than immediate class experience. Chomsky's actual politics are within Harry Cleaver's schema ("Introduction" to /Reading Capital Political/) not a political reading. Chomsky is slaving away, in his political work mind you--the bit where he's not bound by disciplinary standards of linguistics--at a fundamentally left liberal agenda.

Chomsky pretends to be an ally of the working classes, but really he's interested in statescraft. Reminds me of Lenin more than Durruti.

>>464905
I'm pretty sure I'm not imaginary.

>>464882
>Without question, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation's grave crisis -- the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky.

Hyperbole, anyone? Horowitz is a loser. Read his articles and see if you still believe him. Don't just Google 'Chomsky criticism' and post the first article you find.

>>464905
>Chomsky talks about large international politics rather than immediate class experience.
>Chomsky talks about large international politics rather
Because its not like that affects anyone right, or someone attempting to do something about if it were to be occurring might need a framework of understanding for it?
>rather than immediate class experience.
His own personal experience? I'm sure I've heard mention of his extended family living in slums and poverty, personal life not my business really and not sure what its got to do here.
>at a fundamentally left liberal agenda
except, you know, anarchism
>Reminds me of Lenin
now you're just being insulting

"In comparison to the conditions imposed by U.S. tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."

Yeah, he really said that. Why would you take him seriously?

>>464905
>Chomsky's actual politics are within Harry Cleaver's schema ("Introduction" to /Reading Capital Political/) not a political reading. Chomsky is slaving away, in his political work mind you--the bit where he's not bound by disciplinary standards of linguistics--at a fundamentally left liberal agenda.

>>464906
you are to to the intellectual class Historian belongs to.

>>464905
You're right here, sort of. Chomsky is interested in state craft, power structures, and the the apparatus(es? i?) of control used by various nations. Individual workers are outside of his level of focus.

>>464905
>some kind of imaginary working class.

>>464913
>I don't know what the USA did in Latin America, Indochina, or Africa

>>464918
Don't pick on him. He doesn't know better.

>Historians arguments

>>464918
Ehm, it kind of depends what period of Soviet rule in Eastern Europe you're talking about

I mean, the US did some pretty brutal shit, yes, but the Soviet Union was not really a pleasant place to live during some periods

>>464918
>Implying Latin America, Indochina, or Africa are located in eastern Europe.

>>464918

This. Wow.

>>464921
>I still don't know

>>464899
The edition available by google books is not the edition I read in 1998, which was from the mid 1970s. I suspect that the available edition has been strongly emended, but I am not proposing to travel a few hundred kilometres to verify from the library I used during undergraduate studies. Nevertheless there is an over use of NYT, Boston Globe, CSM and Le Monde, an under use of available non news sources, and my recollection of the sourcing of particular incidents of aerial bombardment was that they were singularly sourced from Western newspaper reports.

>>464922

>implying Chomsky's intent was to parallel eastern Europe under the U.S. vs. Russia

He was talking about U.S. imperialism in general. You can't take him seriously if you don't read him seriously.

>>464924
I'm not the first guy you quoted, and I am, again, not trying to deny that the US did some bad shit

All I'm saying is that the Soviet Union might still have been worse at certain periods

>>464906
_Chomsky's_ working class is imaginary. Its a reification of people more interested in the American case in the foreign policy manoeuvres of their government than in dips, cars, hourly rates, health care (for or against) Fiddy Cent, etc.

>>464912
So you're asserting that Lenin arose ab initio from social democracy, and not from the distortions of a small sectarian movement focused on an intelligentsia and world politics rather than class experience. Anarchists can fall into that trap too, Victor Serge's writings may help here, both on Bonnot and on the Russian Revolution. As may Kollontai's /Red Love/.

I've always kind of wondered about Chomsky. I've read a few of his books, and he spends a lot of time saying what uncle sam really wants, power, violence, etc. etc. But he never really seems to really engage any kind of discussion on what should be DONE about it. He pretty much says voting is pointless one way or the other, but he doesn't really makes calls to organize or protest or... much of anything, at least in the books I've read. Well, I think he praised some sorta-anarchist settlements in Israel one time, but that was about it. What exactly is his goal with all of his writing?

>>464928
>I'll try and make concessions, even though I still don't know what was done, to try not to look like such a huge moron

Stop digging the hole deeper and go read.
I recommend Killing Hope as your starting point.
It collects everything of the post-WWII period in a chronological list of everything overt and covert the USA has done each in their own chapter.
Copious sourcing of newspapers, journals, government documents, interviews, and especially books.
So after reading a particular chapter you can then go and find more detailed works on that event.
http://rapidshare.com/files/319087457/Blum__William_-_Killing_Hope__Zed_Books_2003__complete__chapte
rs_1-56_notes.pdf

>>464905
So you're original argument against this book, which was that he had 300 footnotes all referring to the Christian Science Monitor, is kaput? You admit you were lying/exaggerating for rhetoric's sake all along?

As I said above, the United States government had still not launched investigations into the campaigns in Asia (that were declassified). The few investigations that had been published are all cited in the book.

Chomsky did rely on a lot of Western sources. Not all of them were from the United States. If he had relied on more non-Western sources, you would be even more up in arms about this. "Oh look, he cites Vietnamese newspapers! Of course those are biased!"

Come back when you have real arguments. Stop trying to look cool by trying to refute books you haven't read but have an ideological aversion to.

Historian, you seemed knowledgeable and I was impressed when you discussed subjects about which I had no knowledge. Then you stepped into this thread and proved that you're a blowhard and a fool. I'll be evaluating all your future posts with much more cynicism.

>>464921
>but the Soviet Union was not really a pleasant place to live during some periods
And that was at the best of times. (ha ha).

>>464917
>>some kind of imaginary working class. [cat extreme.jpg]
Compare it to Orwell's imaginary working class. Chicks don't work in Orwell unless they're picking hops and getting raped. He doesn't fully get why workers eat white bread and live in gymcrack. He's got a repressive hardon for miner's wiping their arses by hand but completely occludes the workers education movement.

>>464914
"left-liberal" => Chomsky would rather play toy soldiers (or toy war crimes) than see workers' self organisation.

>>464912
>>at a fundamentally left liberal agenda
>except, you know, anarchism
See his IWW membership for a case in point about how "bad" an anarchist he is.

>>464906
>I'm pretty sure I'm not imaginary.
But in Chomsky's writings you only end up being deluded by the media, caught up in big buisness politics and war crimes, and incapable of self expression either in a stunted form within capitalism, or by aruging for a full expression in a free society.

>>464939
You know what, fuck you

You seriously think that there is no way on earth that the Soviet Union did bad shit? You seriously think it was easy and awesome living in Eastern Europe during the early Soviet period? I, again, agree that the US did bad shit, blah blah blah. It was not exactly peaches and roses in Eastern Europe in 1956 when the fucking tanks rolled into fucking Budapest.

>>464932
>Its a reification of people more interested in the American case in the foreign policy manoeuvres of their government than in dips, cars, hourly rates, health care (for or against) Fiddy Cent, etc.
163 results on chomsky.info for NAFTA
69 results on chomsky.info for cars, 34 results for public transportation
93 results on chomsky.info for healthcare
shall I go on? You're just making shit up no
"Oh he's just interested in obscurantist fact collecting, nothing relating to the common man"
>>464934
>But he never really seems to really engage any kind of discussion on what should be DONE about it.
Get active and organized, duh.

>>464945
And it wasn't exactly roses when US-sponsored tanks rolled into nearly every country of South America and Indochina to fuck things up there.

The point isn't that the Soviet Union was so great. It's to remind Americans that the propaganda of "Soviets bad, US GOOD, no matter what" is incorrect.

>>464946
for Universal Healthcare I might add

>>464948
and trained their militaries in counter-insurgency
600,000 dead in Indonesia in Suhartos first year.

>>464948
Was I fucking repeating that fucking propaganda? Was I? Fuck you. FUCK you. Fuck you for treating me like I'm a fucking idiot for making a claim that was essentially right because you think I'm some kind of retard who does not realize that the Cold War was not black and white. Get down off your high fucking horse. I was never claiming that the US is good and Soviet is bad, and if your entire point was to remind me that wasn't true, why did you mock me WHEN I SAID THAT I KNEW IT WASN'T TRUE?

FUCK YOU

Wow. I'm surprised by how mad about this I am.

No serious academic actually takes Chomsky seriously outside linguistics.

>>464802

Me again. As I was saying: humorless bitch.

>>464945
You're the one trying to minimize the US violent interventions.

>>464954
I am not trying to minimize them, I am asserting that the Soviet Union was not a good place to live, nor was its conduct in international politics noticeably more moral than that of the United States

>>464946
'get active and organized' is not a plan. It's not even a mission statement. Get active doing what? Organize into what?

>>464953
>>464951

>>464951

>>464957
changing politics. Its not just a matter of voting for some guy every 4 years.
You've got to develop an alternative political base from the ground up.
But this isn't 1964. There are now big broad groups and movements you can get involved in to do this.

>>464959
how did you figure out i was mad

did i explicitly say i was mad in the post or something

>>464934
Partly he thinks it is elementary, what the other guy said.
And partly because as an Anarchist he doesn't want to go around telling people what to do or giving that sort of advice.

>>464941
>You admit you were ...exaggerating for rhetoric's sake all along?
My statements were based on a ten year old recollection of a different edition which contained footnotes instead of end notes. After reading snippet views of available early editions, I'll have to recant my statement until I locate the text my recollections are based on. Thank you for correcting me. The text still doesn't meet my disciplinary standards, but I was incorrect in the detail of my criticism.

>If he had relied on more non-Western sources, you would be even more up in arms about this. "Oh look, he cites Vietnamese newspapers! Of course those are biased!"
You obviously don't know my reading area. DRVN newspapers tended to be fairly decent on factual matters where they were the injured party. Less good on self-criticism. But the internal self critical documents from the Workers Party did leak out during Chomsky's period, at least to the RAND think tank. Wilfred Burchett's NFL diary (basically DRVN Worker's Party's southern branch's line) is confirmable from secondary sources in the RVN: they're good for the docs.

>Stop trying to look cool by trying to refute books you haven't read but have an ideological aversion to.
You'd want to look up Harry Cleaver, above, mate. My aversion to Chomsky is his methodological failings when he's outside of linguistics. My invective is because I broadly agree with his positions, and feel that he is letting the side down by being shitty.

>I'll be evaluating all your future posts with much more cynicism.
You should always be doing this, with all posts. Argument from authority is only good when the authority is genuine, and this circumstance is only true when genuine arguments are sustainable. In this case, mine were not. Again, thanks.

>>464963
>>464963
>>464963
Right. Anarchism isn't a system of doctrines to be followed like a text book. It is challenging systems of domination. Nothing more and nothing less.

lol someone should mention Chomsky's multi-million dollar offshore hedge funds he has so as to avoid the burden of taxation on his millions.

But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth
north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years
back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and
Dodge, and with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax
planning" set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle
Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!)
and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust
(named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several
of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution --
just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical
politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to
sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money
for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one email. Chomsky
offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally
proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect
their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter
is okay because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people."

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html

lolo

>>464946
chomsky.info "working class life" => zero hits.
chomsky.info "working class" identity => "Nobodyʼs working class. Itʼs just not a concept that exists. Itʼs ... are trained to perceive their identity and their aspirations and their ..." p19 of www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040917.pdf

>>464969
Why would anyone be surprised an anarchist legally tries to lower his tax bill?

>>464970

ITT: People call Chomsky a communist when he's an anarchist.

Basically society doesn't work cuz it wastes too much money enforcing laws and rules that people don't follow anyway.

Live and let live.

>>464965

just out of interest, what's your area of research?

>>464969
where has Chomsky opposed authors copyrights of their works?

>>464971
>Chomsky
>anarchist
>favors government monopoly healthcare
>favors government control of industry
>states his support for "council communism"
>states his strong support for statist Chavez
>supports numerous left-statist regimes
>is in favor of increasing taxes on the rich (except himself)

Yeah, Chomchom's a real legit anarchist.

>>464969
>with a net worth north of $2,000,000
gee, you'd almost think he worked for decades a major scientific institute...

I'm not nearly so concerned about Chomsky's citations, as about the pages and pages where he happily tells you America's secret intentions without ever providing any kind of evidence whatsoever. I'm browsing through Fateful Triangle right now, and he's spent 50 pages talking about the US and Israel abusing Palestine, and hasn't mentioned a single act of Palestinian violence. Not even hinted that there might be some kind of negative energy on their side. It's pretty easy to make any country look monstrous when you transform all the other actors into passive victims.

>>464976
He's an anarchist. It's obvious.

>>464969
so what, Chomsky doesn't want his taxes towards fundig the US war machine ... If I could avoid paying tax, I would too

>>464945
>It was not exactly peaches and roses in Eastern Europe in 1956 when the fucking tanks rolled into fucking Budapest.

Actually it was. The first wave of Soviet Tanks was from highly educated Russian and Ukranian Soviet soldiers stationed in Hungary on a permanent basis. In the western half of Hungary and Budapest soviet troops negotiated on the ground cease fires directly with Hungarian working class revolutionaries. In some cases individuals and platoons defected to the revolution. In some cases officers negotiated direct cease fire agreements with revolutionary workers councils.

Then on November 4 soldiers from East Asian republics invaded as a result of Politbureau discussions, many of whom were illiterate, none of whom had been outside the Soviet Union and in the people's democracies. Many soldiers from this wave of troops believed themselves to be in Berlin fighting resurgent German Nazis or in Suez fighting imperialists. That wasn't peaches and cream. Red Csepel, the heart of the industrial working class in Budapest was the last bastion to fall in Budapest itself. Children turned pressure hoses filled with fuel onto the streets and set their own homes on fire to burn tanks. Nasty stuff.

Pluses to being a worker in the Soviet countries 1928-1968: job guarantees, ease of promotion, welfare state

Minuses to being a worker in the Soviet countries 1928-1968: arbitrary and massive internal repression, horrendously stupidly fought imperialist wars, every movement for worker's self control being brutally crushed.

>>464973

I have a better way of putting it.

People would be farmers if they had realistic opportunity to grow their own food and shelter and live without working.

Who needs electricity if you get to be with your friends all day.

>>464979
He's disabusing you of the propaganda from the West. If you are from the West and reading his book, you've already heard about all the violence. You know the stories. You've seen the aftermath. Chomsky is presenting the other side. Why should he do what the media does for you every day?

>>464971
>>464976
>>464980
>>464978

Chomsky is not an anarchist. He's an egalitarian left collectivist who preaches "equality" and supports using the state to heavily tax those who earn muchos dinero (himself excluded).

He's a hypocrite.

>>464970
>chomsky.info "working class" identity => "Nobodyʼs working class. Itʼs just not a concept that exists. Itʼs ... are trained to perceive their identity and their aspirations and their ..." p19 of www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040917.pdf
Lets see the full text:
One of my daughters teaches in a state college in which the aspirations of most of the students are to become a nurse or a policeman. The first day of class (she teaches history) she usually asks her students to identify their class background. And it turns out there are two answers. Either theyʼre middle class, or theyʼre underclass. If their father has a job, like as a janitor, theyʼre middle class. If their father is in jail or transient, then itʼs underclass. Thatʼs it. Nobodyʼs working class. Itʼs just not a concept that exists. Itʼs not just here—itʼs true in England too. I was in England a couple of months ago at the time of the Cannes Festival, when Michael Moore won, and one of the papers had a long interview with him, and the interviewer was suggesting that Michael Moore wasnʼt telling the truth when he said he came from a working class background. He said he came from a working class background, but his father had a car and owned a house, so, you know, whatʼs this crap about coming from a working class background? Well, his father was an auto worker! I mean, the whole concept of class in any meaningful sense has just been driven out of peopleʼs heads. The fact that there are some people who give the orders and others who follow them—that is gone. And the only question is, how many goods do you have?— as if, if you have goods, you have to be middle class, even if youʼre just following the orders.

>>464971
He was involved in the anti-War tax resistance through the 1960s & 1970s, didn't pay for years.

>>464988

Thank you. I was about to do the same thing.

>>464963
How can you be any kind of anarchist when you live in Massachusetts, you're a professor at a major college, and you have an offshore trust fund? Seems like saying you're a strict catholic who goes to temple every day.

>>464986
Why is he not included? Did the government give him some deal so that whenever people vote for a tax increase based on Chomsky's influence, he doesn't have to pay it? Or are you just full of horseshit?

>>464975
Mid twentieth century middle class control over workers in the industrialised countries, Western and Soviet.

>>464979
>and hasn't mentioned a single act of Palestinian violence.
Because a disorganized band of militias could ever hope to match the force and violence of a large technologically sophisticated military. And their actions might be in response to repression, land theft, violence, etc.
No, they're supposed to kiss the jackboot kicking them in the face and say meekly "Thank you Massa"

>>464993
becuase anarchism is not a lifestyle choice

>>464993
see this
>>464968

>>464986
>my Corporate-centric view of Anarchism that hijacked the word Libertarian in the 1970s is the one and only true form.

>>464994
Is MIT a government agency now?

>>464988
The Historian is found to be grossly distorting his facts and sourcing.

>>464986

oh hai!

mises dot org is that way ------------>

>>465002

>>464995
interesting. I will keep my eye open for works on that theme, from an autonomist-Marxist perspective

>>464988
>as if, if you have goods, you have to be middle class, even if youʼre just following the orders.

So... A starving artist is upper class now? But an engineer who makes 80k a year is working class?

>>465002
He already admitted to it: >>464965

He just argues to argue, and people see his Tripfag and large paragraphs and assume he knows what he's talking about.

>>465001
well Chomsky himself says that for a long time its funding was 100% coming from the Pentagon

>>464972
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbtpNblpGh0
0s: Bourgeois control of workers
1m: Bourgeois control of workers
2m: "a real life functioning social contract which includes not only rights for working people"
3m: Bourgeois control of workers
4m: Bourgeois control of workers, "because we don't have a civil society, with organised elements, such as unions, which can be a countervaling force."
5m: Bourgeois control of workers "Guarantees elementary human rights for workers including the right to form unions"

Lets imagine that he's putting the "bad" case early.

9m: Bourgeois control of workers, "legally firing thousands of workers for ... their rights to organise"

Yeah, sounds like he isn't painting me as a universal victim of capitalism, also sounds like his programme isn't the left liberal accommodation of capitalism with "rights".

And who are the workers in this speech at the samples I selected? The Unions replace the workers as agents of history and their own emancipation. Otto Rühle could have told you the unions will always be fucked because of their role in capitalism. In 1928. As a result of his experience with unions in the SPD and KPD in 1914 and 1917-19.

>>464995
So the application of B.F. Skinner to management?

>>465009
You read bad.

>>465009
>he thinks social class is determined by income level and not the relationship to the means of production

>>465002
I'm providing citations. My sourcing is fine.

>>465012
So did Marcuse's. /Soviet Marxism/ was CIA funded. Most Soviet focused marxist works in the US prior to 1965 were CIA funded, including the Hungarian refugee interviews (the CIA at least put two cut outs in that funding stream).

Taking the CIA dollar isn't anything to tarnish anybody with. Up until the 1970s the CIA valued accurate opinions and reports regarding the condition of the Soviet Union.

>>464985
No, he's quite clearly claiming that he's presenting the entire point. I've got nothing against presenting the side of the Palestinians, I think the Israelis are taking a tactic that's destructive towards both themselves and, even more so, the Palestinians, including many innocents. But to simply not mention the terrorist attacks against Israel is incomplete to the point of being dishonest. It's like writing a history of Al Qaeda starting with the US invasion of Afghanistan, and never mentioning anything previous to that point. Sure it's history, but half the truth is still a half-truth.

>>464997
>>464998
>>465001
>>465004

Wait, wait, wait.. so are you "anarchists" now okay with an individual amassing his own large private wealth and keeping it from the hands of the collective?

If so, you're the ones who need to be heading to mises.org.

>>465019
But you are being dishonest by distorting what he said are you not?

>>465008
If you need a kick start on it now, try Andy Anderson's /Hungary '56/ ( http://libcom.org/library/hungary-56-andy-anderson ) and also Andy Anderson's later /The Enemy is Middle Class/ (isbn13: 9780953255207) (review: http://libcom.org/library/review-of-the-enemy-is-middle-class )

>>465014
>The Unions replace the workers as agents of history and their own emancipation.
And any serious Anarchist, like Chomsky, will tell you that Workers ought to be directly responsible for and in charge of running their Union, any positions it might need would be filled from within the work force, would be temporary, part-time, and elected.
Remember the aim is eliminating all hierarchy and questioning all authority.
You really don't seem to actually know what Chomskys views are. I suggest you browse Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian-Socialism.

>>465023
>he thinks anarchism is just about individual lifestyle choices under capitalism

>>465012
>It is very interesting to look at a place like MIT which was right in the center of these developments. My department — you are teaching a course in the Military Industrial Complex — my department is an example of it.

>I came here in the mid-50s. I don’t know the difference between a radio and a tape recorder, but I was in the electronics lab. I was perhaps the one person who refused to get clearance on principle. Not that it made any difference; everything was open anyway.

>>465015
More Taylor, Lenin, Professional Engineering, Sociology, Professional Education, professionalisation of Nursing (and the Matron system), Doctors, Foremen. Miklós Haraszti's /Worker in a Worker's State/ ( ISBN-13: 9780876635612 )is good for eastern europe, as is Milovan Djilas.

>>465025
great! thanks. I haven't read this stuff, but For Workers' Power by Maurice Brinton is one of my favourite books, so I think I will get along with this just fine ...

>>465024
I was overstating a point I had reason to believe in, and retracted it when corrected.

>>465027
It's not a "lifestyle choice," it's millions of dollars of profit he's amassed and is keeping it for himself.

On the most obvious level, this makes him a hypocrite as he's in favor of increasing estate taxes, taxes on the rich, etc.

However, it is also entirely contrary to the praxis of left-"anarchism." To deny this would just demonstrate even further the degree to which you fanboys are up this celebrity's rectum.

>>465021
Yes, it was those "Team B" fellows who rejected lucid rational analysis and put together all sorts of wild claims. But really that was just the justification.
They had decided on a more belligerent and militarist approach, now they needed a reason.
Came up with some pretty funny and surreal claims about the Soviets capacity.

>>465035
anarchism is about the self-organisation of the working class and the overthrow of capital and the state.

An individual's private financial affairs don't really come into this unless s/he is a capitalist who employs others directly.

>>465035
How is he a hypocrite? Does he not get taxed when taxes go up and he doesn't fight them?

>>465026
>>The Unions replace the workers as agents of history and their own emancipation.
>And any serious Anarchist, like Chomsky, will tell you that Workers ought to be directly responsible for and in charge of running their Union, any positions it might need would be filled from within the work force, would be temporary, part-time, and elected.

Actually no. Rühle, as I mentioned from the AAUD / KAPD, was extremely harsh about the potential for workers to *ever* control their unions. Experience with "militant" unions such as Unite NZ shows the corruption of even the best kind of union. For a more typical example of the collapse of militant worker controlled unions, by 1940 the CIO had agreed to a "no strike" pledge with the US Government for the "war effort." Nice job. Less than 10 years from militant wild cat work-ins to Union bureaucracy as normal.

For Rühle on the German revolution: http://marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1924/revolution.htm#h6

>>465031
thanks again

>>465033
Woo woo Maurice! :)

>>465027

on the fundamental level, by modern definitions,

anarchism = 100% capitalism


anarchism

NOUN [UNCOUNTABLE] /ˈænə(r)ˌkɪz(ə)m/

the political belief that there should be no government

=

capitalism

NOUN [UNCOUNTABLE] ECONOMICS /ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪz(ə)m/

an economic system in which property, businesses, and industry are owned by individual people and not by the government

>>465041
Recovered Factory Movement.

>>465045
No.

>>465047
Nice argument. You showed him.

>>465037
>Yes, it was those "Team B" fellows who rejected lucid rational analysis and put together all sorts of wild claims. But really that was just the justification.

I know. Get into the Radio Free Europe / Radio America analysis of the mid 1950s and you're reading lucid, methodologically sympathetic, and above all understanding accounts of the nature of the Soviet Elite and their control over workers. Those RFE/RA guys wrote some great day to day analysis. Sometimes wrong because they didn't get the class issues within the Soviet Union, but they were liberal educated Americans, so pretty unlikely to (one reason to hire Marcuse off the bench).

>>465045
oh piss off ... anarcho-capitalists can call themselves anarchists if they want but they cannot deny that label to the vast majority of anarchists who are anti-state anti-capitalists.

>>465040
>>465038

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income.

Voila. Blatant hypocrisy. Not that I blame him. Like all of us, he's a self-interested individual.

>>465053
>vast majority of anarchists
>quantitative claim

Citation needed.

>>465046
Far more interesting than unions as such. I suspect the high focus on immediate workers control of production changes the game from the trade union bargaining over what price to sell labour at, to the workers fighting for an end to sale of labour and for control over work. But then we're back at workers' councils all over again and away from the union.

How could a union, party or social movement produce or encourage workers occupations / reclaiming factories?

>>465041
I suppose we should just give in to management, be passive little consumers

>>465045
>he thinks dictionaries can solve disputes about socio-political movements and ideologies

>>465055
Why is this hypocrisy? They are using tax havens. Taxes go up on the rich. They pay a little bit more.

Chomsky is rich. He advocates an increase in his own taxes. He also is using a tax haven. His taxes go up.

What is the issue?

>>465045
what is this i don't even

>>465062

Words have no inherent, intrinsic meaning. Definition is intersubjective. Language is dynamic and emergent.

Dictionaries capture the fundamental, dominant definitions of words. It's not about "solving" anything, but it is about using language intelligently.

By modern definition, 100% capitalism = anarchism. No matter how much the members of the dying cults of partisan collectivism whine about their "movements," they don't own the words. The people do. And the people have spoken in a chorus of dictionaries that reflect their intersubjective consensus.

Anarchism = capitalism.

>>465057
>union/council
semantics. The goal is we the workers are the ones in charge of our workplace and in charge of our community.
How could they? Next time theres a Wild Cat strike, don't just sit there - take over.

>>465064
He is using a tax haven, which is a thing you use to get away from high taxes, to avoid taxes going up.. do you understand how that works?

>>465056
okay, I am speaking from experience. I have been involved in the UK anarchist movement for quite a few years now. Everyone in the movement, whether in Anarchist Federation, Class War, Liberty and Solidarity or the Solidarity Federation, or whether they are independent non-party anarhcos, is anti-capitalist.

On the internet, there is a fringe of anarcho-capitalists and they can call themselves anarhcists if they want - I do not care - but what they cannot do is deny that label to others.

>>465073
I'll let you know the instant my trade union as a living group of workers manages to take over a campus. Now excuse me, I have a Hollywood celebrity in my bed...

Take someone who's a committed revolutionary, thinks we really have to throw out whatever there is of the capitalist system and market system and so on, take someone like that. They're still reformers. All the people you mention are still in favour of developing a decent health care system through government intervention because that's the only option. None of them say "lets not improve lives of people because we'd like to see a revolutionary change." They'd all be in favour for example.
Take say OSHA, the safety and health goals in the workplace, for years its been declining under Bush probably disappeared. But everyone you mentioned would be in favour of strengthening those regulations, they're government regulations.
Because what you're in favour of if you're serious, and the people you mention are, is pressing the institutions to the limits. Seeing what they can achieve. You're not gonna get mass popular movements trying to overthrow the institutions until people recognize they cannot satisfy our needs. Therefore you try to press reform as far as possible within the structure of existing institutions meanwhile developing alternative institutions from within building the future in the present society.
That goes on simultaneously.

>>465072
>Definition is intersubjective
you said it.

your view is that of a tiny minority and not accepted by others. Keep it for yourself but do not deny anyone else the right to use a label they feel is right for them and which carries with it almost 150years of tradition

>>465072
so, property is obviously an anarchist concept. please go outside of your randoid universe and learn about what libertarianism originally means.

>>465055
Yes, we can all Google the quote and find the same article you are taking all your information from. You act as if you have been following his career and know all about his stance on voluntary contributions to the state. You also seem to be on expert on Chomsky's personal taxes. You aren't. You read one article, by an organization that aims to assassinate Chomsky's character.

According to this article, Chomsky has a net worth of about 2 million dollars. That is less than the cost of a house in an upper class neighborhood. The guy Chomsky pays to pay his taxes recommended a strategy to make it really easy and implemented it. The tax system is complicated. If you tour the world giving speeches, get royalties from dozens of books, get a salary from a university, and have other, more complicated streams of income, you wouldn't want to do your taxes either.

>>465077
I'm from New Zealand and know plenty of anarcho-capitalists, probably because I'm an economist. I've never met a left-anarchist, though I don't frequent militant vegan co-ops or anything so I'm probably just missing them.

>>465076
children and grandchildren possess the copyrights to his books, that not quite a tax haven

>>465077
You've forgotten Kevin in Leeds, I once heard him say he wanted to reduce men to objects through fairly paying them for their subsistence but working them for more marketable goods than it costs to sustain them and the plant.

>>465084
This sounds distinctly like Trotsky's concepts of the transitional programme and permanent revolution. Now my anarchist comrades, never let me hear you say that old Leon did *nothing* good for the movement.

...

Yes I am reaching at straws here and restricting myself to his intellectual output.

>>465079
>my trade union
what trade union, you're an academic twit.
But supposing you are in one, what are you doing about educating them to self-management?
More likely you work in the Unions machinery as a bureaucrat with no shop floor experience.

>>465093
>You've forgotten Kevin in Leeds,

there's always one ...

>>465085

I'm not denying the label to anyone, but 150 years of tradition (which you don't have - Proudhon denounces collectivism and functionally embraced private property in Theory of Property, as did Tucker, de Cleyre, and numerous other "anarchists" after him) doesn't mean anything to language.

By dominant modern definition, anti-capitalist anarchist is an oxymoron.

>>465079
Do you know how it works? Do you think you just hire an expensive accountant, tell him "I don't want to pay taxes anymore", and *poof* your responsibility for taxes is gone? Tax havens help keep your tax burden down for a certain portion of your income. It doesn't mean your taxes are gone.

>>465103
A number of countries have academic trade unions. I suggest you look into them. They're of varying quality and usually fuck over their most working class members: library and clerical staff, casual academics, terminal low grade academics.

>I'm from New Zealand and know plenty of anarcho-capitalists, probably because I'm an economist.

unsurprising, then, seeing as you're an economist! ... Still, the biggest anarchist presence in N would be in Wellington. The movement is pretty small in New Zealand, from what I know

>>465086

Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist. This excludes from Anarchism all believers in compulsory Communism. As for the believers in voluntary Communism (of whom there are precious few), they are of necessity believers in the liberty to hold private property, for to pool one's possessions with those of others is nothing more or less than an exercise of proprietorship.
- Benjamin Tucker

Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism.
- Benjamin Tucker

It will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that 'property is robbery' to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by 'property' he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products.
- Benjamin Tucker

>>465101
No.

>>465106

Voltarine de Cleyre, 1910:
"the weapon of the future will be the general strike"

[is it not clear that] "it must be the strike which will ...stay in the factory, not go out? which will guard the machines and allow no scab to touch them? which will organise, not to inflict deprivation on itself, but on the enemy? which will take over industry and operate it for the workers, not for franchise holder, stockholders, and officeholders?"

yeah ... well capitalist, innit?

>>465112
yeah, possibly.

>>465114
oh no, it's you again ...

I had an argument with you several weeks ago, you dredged up all these fake quotes from books you'd obviously never read, by the likes of Orwell and Camus

Piss off

>>465125

Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should.
- Voltairine de Cleyre

Capitalistic Anarchism? Oh, yes, if you choose to call it so. Names are indifferent to me; I am not afraid of bugaboos. Let it be so, then, capitalistic Anarchism.
- Voltairine de Cleyre

>>465129
Those are not fake quotes. Google it, butthurt motherfucker.

>>465117
Its a similar analysis from a similar basis: how do you cause revolution in a condition where you can only sensibly make demands achievable within capitalism. The idea of demands that push the system to the breaking point is the idea of the transitional demand.

The IWW tradition of fighting until you get kicked in the guts so hard that you puke doesn't really work so well. Then again, neither does transitional demands with a bolshevist party formation.

>>465134
i won't bother ... you presented loads f fake quotes last time trying to make out that Orwell was in the same tradition as Rothbard

you just paste quotes you found on the net.

>>465022
>>465022
>>465022
>>465022
>>465022
This this this this this. It's what's dishonest about Chomsky, and why he's a dick.

The Chomsky arguer here:
It is 10:14pm my time. Some of us have to work. Unlike you unemployed anarcho-capitalist neckbeards and academic twits.
Pic related, all of you.

>>465142

You're probably confusing me with someone else, but I was referring to the Tucker quotes, which are from his later years when he actually saw socialism in praxis and became an ardent individualist and proto-capitalist.

With de Cleyre, it's the reverse. She began as the first self-labeled "anarcho-capitalist" but was then drawn more into collectivist rhetoric by Goldman.

Orwell and Rothbard were obviously not the same.. Rothbard was late 20th C economist and Orwell was an early 20th C journalist and author... however they certainly did have much in common - opposition to collectivism, to communism, to statism, their advocacy of individualism, etc.

> He should have sticked to linguistics IMO

I can't really understand how this thread had so many posts after this being the first comment.

>>465151
same format of posts: quotes and pictures and also the exact same quotes ...

>>465167
Regardless, quotes are not fake, and they destroy the notion that anti-propertarian collectivists own the "anarchist" tradition. They don't. It has always had a strong individualist propertarian faction, and that has become all the more relevant with the revelations of modern economic science that confirm the logical incoherence of collectivism (Arrow, etc.) and the welfare suboptimality of anti-propertarianism (numerous).

>>465184
just cut the crap.
You don't wanna pay taxes, I get it.
Also, you are afraid of cops, nothing wrong with that.

Just unplug the stick from your ass once in a while.

>>465197
I'm not afraid of cops.. I like cops. They serve a useful function. Problem is, the state monopoly on police is extremely inefficient and security function is compromised by things like victimless crimes.

Prettymuch nobody "likes paying taxes."

>>465210
but not everybody that dislikes paying them wants to abolish them.

And the state monopoly on physical coercion is innefficient?
What is your vision, rivaling police corporations?
You should have read some history, this is just typical for an economist.

>>465197
>>465218
don talk to them - it only encourages them

>>465218
Hold it, "Camus was an anarchocapitalist, I have reading comprehension issues" troll is a NZ economist?

>>465210
two things are for sure:
death and taxes.

if you don't pay the latter you chose the first.
At least that would have been the case in the good old days of state-building.
Get some contractualist theory up your ass.

>>465222
I think so... at least thats what he once said.

>>465222
he also posts fake quotes from books he's obviously never read

If that guy is from New Zealand and is actually a economist and has so outspoken views on whatever the hell he calls this shit, then it should be easy to identify him somehow.

There are only 100 people living down there anyway, right?

>>465231
>actually a economist

on here, I take that to mean, studies economics
(the only exception is Historian, who is obviously a professional - though why he's on here is beyond me ...)

>>465232
he said he published articles.

And a person that crazy and self-obsessed might just not be lying about this

>>465235
fuck, i meant lieing

>>465235
we can all "publish articles" these days becuase of the web and all ... Still, yeah, it should be easy to track him down

>>465236
no, lying is correct

>>465241
really? looks fucking wrong to me... but english is not my first language.

>>465245
yeah, the present participle of "lie" is "lying"

Politics and the English Language
http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-english-language1.htm
>"Never use a long word where a short one will do".
>"If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out".
>"Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent".

>>466467
Yes, and Orwell's writing is imprecise, fundamentally clouded by his unwillingness to admit the working class has a positive potential in the immediate concrete shit wiping jam eating sense, and quite frankly, he doesn't do social structure. Great exemplar.