Chomsky turning 75

http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhal...

An interesting article regarding his linguistic and political writings. In english even, so you guys get a chance to read it, if you are interested that is of course :).

Chomsky''s an interesting fellow, even though I don''t always agree with him. I hope he stays active (and alive) for a long while to come.

he repeatedly stressed that they are all part of one central problem: ""private ownership of resources"".

Just a pulled quote to help people know if they might be interested.

yeah its always good to dismiss someones work completely, because he said something stupid once. I guess you don''t read what Bush jr is saying at all then?

I, too don''t always agree with him, but what he does very well is raising questions that are worth debating. And that is more than many other people do these days including a lot of politicians.

I''m sorry, I don''t have a lot of litmus tests, but this is one of the few I do have. I just imagine someone coming to take away the stuff I have because someone else doesn''t have as much. There is nothing noble in demanding universal fairness through common possession. Besides the quote I pulled is from the very end of the article, it isn''t as though I read 3 sentences and wrote him off.

Chris, he has said it more than once.

It''s not like his observations about politics and media and whatnot are invalidated because he has a different opinion about how society should be structured. And I doubt that he meant personal possessions by ''resources''. As far as I''ve understood it, he objects to natural resources and such being under private or corporate control, as it puts them in a position of power, a power they haven''t earned or been granted by the people, to whom they have no accountability. Actually, I think he extends the argument to all major corporations. But anyway, it''s not like he''s advocating beating down your door and redistributing your cd-collection amongst the population.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

It''s not like his observations about politics and media and whatnot are invalidated because he has a different opinion about how society should be structured. And I doubt that he meant personal possessions by ''resources''. As far as I''ve understood it, he objects to natural resources and such being under private or corporate control, as it puts them in a position of power, a power they haven''t earned or been granted by the people, to whom they have no accountability. Actually, I think he extends the argument to all major corporations. But anyway, it''s not like he''s advocating beating down your door and redistributing your cd-collection amongst the population.

He doesn''t think I should be able to own my own business. He doesn''t believe in people. He thinks that people are too stupid and must be led by big brother, I mean the Government.

He''s a communist. Nothing wrong with being a communist, but he is one.

But my personal possessions are resources. That cd collection, on which I store my capitalist propaganda, would be much better used for something else: perhaps being melted down and used to refloor a government building somewhere.

Also I am, in a sense, defined by my possessions. I don''t actually make anything. I buy the things that interest me. If I use the world view of Chomsky, the me I think I am is simply a delusion created by capitalist propaganda. I get a bit turned off by people who try to make points by calling their opponents delusional.

"Ulairi" wrote:

He''s a communist. Nothing wrong with being a communist, but he is one.

An anarchist, I think you''ll find. If you were to read any of his writings on the subject, that is.

"Gorack" wrote:

Also I am, in a sense, defined by my possessions. I don''t actually make anything. I buy the things that interest me. If I use the world view of Chomsky, the me I think I am is simply a delusion created by capitalist propaganda. I get a bit turned off by people who try to make points by calling their opponents delusional.

Do you have a quote backing any of this up are you merely extrapolating and making straw men from that one line?

However if you genuinely believe that ""Hay, buying these Ray-Bans make me what I am"", then *I* will be more than happy to call you a muppet. (Although sadly it was probably just poorly phrased. :()

Quote from the article:

In 1988, Chomsky coauthored Manufacturing Consent with Edward S. Herman - a brilliant critique of propaganda in capitalist democracies. As the authors explain, countries like the US need sophisticated propaganda more than dictatorships because a dictator can always resort to violence against his own people. Hence, propaganda there is so obvious, so grotesque, so incredible.

I think the words capitalist and propaganda were used together at least 3 more times on the page. Perhaps delusional was the wrong word, but it would not be a stretch to say ""too stupid/naive to see what he sees"".

I don''t have Ray-Ban''s but if I did then an observer could probably guess I spend time outside, perhaps at the beach (which I don''t). This is all I meant: The possessions one has are excellent indicators of what a person is like, how they like to look, and what they like to do. In short: you can learn more about a person from what he buys than from his friends or family.

This might not be your experience, but I believe it to be generally true.

A man builds a fine house; and now he has a master, and a task for life; he is to furnish, watch, show it, and keep it in repair, the rest of his days.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Ulairi" wrote:

Nothing wrong with being a communist

That sound you hear is the noise of millions of former Soviet, Albanian, Chinese, Vietnamese and former East German citizens spinning in their shallow graves.

Gorack: This might just be my horrible hungover interferring with my thought processes, but I read that quote as being about government propaganda in capitalist societies, not capitalist propaganda.

and that is, what he is indeed talking about.