I figured-out tonight why I don't like Noam Chomsky: He's full of shit

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
I figured-out tonight why I don't like Noam Chomsky: He's full of shit

...Perhaps this wasn't always the case, but his recent ('recent' stretching back a couple of decades now) claims are just... repellent to me. I've been very careful to read his work without simply dismissing what amounts to his very offensive rhetoric out of hand, examining the veracity of what was being said from a logical standpoint (I'm not an academic, so I'm hardly in a real position to check the accuracy of his facts) even if I don't happen to like the words on the paper.

Frankly, I don't understand how it is he's recognized as a leading intellectual.

Some of his facts are certainly wrong (...The IDF is not somehow 'American owned'. The Israelis developed their own tanks, and purchase weaponry and aircraft from a number of sources, including the United States. Saying that an Apache Gunship firing on Hessbollah (sp?) terrorists is an act of American aggression because the helicopter was made in America is like saying that anything I write has American authorship because my word processor was developed in America), and his grand premise of America being an imperial empire is based on (of all things) a No True Scotsman fallacy (America doesn't practice TRUE Democracy!).

His stance on capitalism is strange (...I'm, again, not an academic; whether of not political science actually confirms what he claims I don't know) and rather obnoxious. Apparently the social hierarchy is bad, and unions are golden. But how the Hell does one get away from a hierarchy? It's impossible, realistically. The notion that unions are any less corruptable than the businesses they aim to shackle is absurd (See: Britain).

 

Perhaps this is all just stemming from the fact I'm a layman, and some of his topics are over my head (...though I'm a little dubious).

Thoughts?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Noam Chomsky ???umm, more

Noam Chomsky ???

umm, more right than wrong, I'd say.

  I never put him under the microscope, but over all , as I've heard him speak, I mostly agreed. 

  What were your objection(s) more preciously, Kevin ?     

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Noam

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Noam Chomsky ???

umm, more right than wrong, I'd say.

  I never put him under the microscope, but over all , as I've heard him speak, I mostly agreed. 

  What were your objection(s) more preciously, Kevin ?     

 

 

 - He claims America is not a 'true' democracy, and neither are any western nations (logical fallacy), giving no suggestion as to how such a true democracy ought to operate.

 - He faults capitalism as a failure of a system without suggesting what alternative we should use, and with dubious arguments (it creates an undesirable hierarchical structure, it encourages poverty, it appeals to the lowest possible moral standard, etc)

 - He champions unions, which economically ruined Britain, apparently failing to take into account the fact that any union is just as easily corrupted as the corporate juggernauts he so despises.

 - He claims that the U.S. has no right to military intervention, ever (Hi, Neville Chamberlain!), and proposes an extremely weak idea for subduing terrorists (...this is not to say I agree with most military actions conducted by the United States; Americans have made plenty of messes. I will go ahead and vouch for a number of actions aggressively pursued by America as at least well-intentioned. Typically the U.S. is not aiming to kill civilians and sew chaos). It's one thing to look at Iraq and say, 'Okay; big mess. Bush is a criminal for doing this.' It's another to take one incident and conflate it with all others. There are really, really bad people in the world who want to do really, really bad things. A passive stance invites them to make their move (See: World War II).

 - He applauds Islam, condemns Israel, and takes the stance that Islamic terrorism is a result of modern Western aggression. This is such horse shit. This is what gets me the most. Even the most rudimentary historical knowledge will lend the insight necessary to see that Islamic aggression has always been religiously motivated, and vastly outdates modern incursions into the middle east. We're infidels to fundamentalist muslims whether or not we're over there dropping bombs. It's tough to take a stance on the Palestinian / Israeli conflict; both sides are guilty of doing rather terrible things to each other, and being maliciously stubborn. Chomsky makes points about the 'totally fair and free' elections in Palestine that the Western nations didn't like because, as he alleges, 'they just voted for the wrong guy'. Of course, this is a grotesque over-simplification; the 'wrong guy' was a total lunatic, voted-in by a population of fundamentalist muslims, who are content to gleefully strap-on explosives and go door to door in Jarusalem!

 - He contends that all Westerners who talk in terms of wanting to bring modern cultural values to the 3rd world are 'hypocrites' and 'disgraceful'. Apparently I'm supposed to be pandering to the 'equallness' of my lifestyle to that of someone who consciously decides to live in the desert and believes in blowing themselves up to kill 'infidels'.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
" You know why people like

" You know why people like you piss me off?" ~ Kevin      //////

   Well because,  I think Noam Chomsky has it more than half right ! 

                  ... but I could be wrong, .... more details please ....

       Imperialism, Capitalism , is out of control,  yicks, please fix .... N.C.  ??? (yup)

 Islam .... no worse than recent Christianity ... the problem is greed .... N.C ??? (yup)

 I still don't get the anti N.C. major bitch ??? Recognizing problems are the solution ....

                                                 

                     


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Append: - He also alleges

Append:

 - He also alleges that 'Big Media' has a vast and complex conspiracy out to brainwash us and tell us who to vote for (which is absurd on a number of levels. EVERY network, and EVERY broadcaster, and EVERY screenwriter, and EVERY cartoonist is out to get us?)

EDIT: Further Append:

 - He also alleges that educational institutions are party to the conspiracy, that universities are brainwashing cauldrons, that professors and other intellectuals are out to get us and that people who know about the conspiracy are bribed by educational institutes to keep quiet. It's like his own version of 'Big Science' (to paraphrase, 'Half of my life is what they pay me for at MIT; teaching linguistics and semantics. The other half of what I do is what MIT would like to pay me to not do,')

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Gosh , as much as I hate

Gosh , as much as I hate the FCC, that exaggeration might be a good idea ! ... But I never heard N.C. put it that way ???    But hey, I like it !      

     Those approved by the FCC are suspect !!! 

    


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
IAGAY, capitalism is the

IAGAY, capitalism is the most efficient, gracious and cooperative method for running a civilization that we've yet to discover. It's lead to our current lifestyles and the current global climate, which is as peaceful as it's ever been. Capitalism is a great thing; the problem isn't that there's too much of it, it's that the world is severely impoverished of it.

You also should recognize that the types of allegations leveled by Chomsky here are totally proposterous, and are made without clear evidence (Chomsky relies on appeals to authority and historical anecdotes). The notion that all media is involved in a massive conspiracy to brainwash us is fundamentally flawed, for the same reason that ALL such conspiracy theories ('D&D AND RPGS ARE SATANIC AND THERE IS A MASSIVE SATANTIC CONSPIRACY NETWORK OUT TO GET OUR CHILDREN!' 'BIG SCIENCE IS OUT TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR ORIGINS / GOD!' 'THE JEWS STOLE ALL OF GERMANY'S WEALTH AND WE MUST FIND A FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH PROBLEM!' 'BIG GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US AND PLANNED 9/11 AND BRAINWASHES US IN OUR SLEEP!' 'NASA KNOWS ABOUT THE ALIENS AND UFOS ARE REAL AND THEY WANT TO HIDE OUR NEW FRIENDS FROM SPACE FROM US!' etc ) are fundamentally flawed:

There is no real collective effort. What we see as collective efforts are actually emergent behaviors resulting from the acts of individuals. We would need to assume that EVERY SINGLE PERSON involved in these agencies is therefore also somehow tied to the conspiracy. This is an outrageous accusation, and frankly, an offensive one.

 

If Chomsky wants to make that kind of extraordinary claim, he needs to provide the extraordinary evidence for it.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Noam Chomsky On Understanding power

 Kevin R Brown wrote that Chomsky is full of shit ,well that's your opinion ,and being a layman would not impair your understanding,most Chomsky fan's are working class Hero's. His political writing's are based on Rudolf Rocker , his philosophy published in 1938 is Anarcho-syndicalism which was big in trade union's ,worker's solidarity,general strikes .Wikipedia has a small bio of Rocker,and probably the most influential on Chomsky was the work of Wilhelm von Humbolt Prussian minister.philosopher and linguist. Chomsky is first off a language professor at MIT,and his political writing started during the Viet Nam war,with "American Power and the New Mandarins" To mis-understand his work is to live your life with blinder's on.All of his sources can be check  with Human Rights's group like the Red Cross , Amnesty International ,and of course the GAO (Government Accountability Office). "The Culture of Terrorism" is a great critique of US foreign policy, it's about the Reagan Administration and the abuse of power in Central America,Iran Contra affair etc.But perhaps the most shocking of Chomsky's work was a speech that he gave at West Point , after 9/11 the Pentagon asked him to give a lecture on "Just War Theory" what a shock Noam being ask by the Pentagon~WoW................ Also he is not into conspiracy's, he believes that they are a waste of time,while somebody is telling you about JFK or Aliens (distractions) the government goes about building their empire. As long as Joe Blow can sit at home in his lazy-boy chair with a six pack of beer and a boob tube to stare at ,there won't be any Participatory democratic society,there for the Elite are secure in their Mansions. Check out his web page at www.Chomsky,info and his great documentary "Manufactured Consent" and "Necessary Illussions "or go to MIT lectures . Did you ever read Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States" a real History book in my opinion 

 

Signature ? How ?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Kevin, are you maybe taking

Kevin, are you maybe taking NC's passion to extra exaggeration ? 

Isn't his message basically, "Eat the Rich",  who are sickly out of control, and like it the way it is ?   Are "the people" not needing a wake up call ???

   Isn't capitalism currently a run away idea ? I think any system is simply a starting point that needs constant attention and improvement. No free rides, as all is evolution, so pay attention, or else ....   go Norm , Thanks for bitching  !    

  DG had a gripe with Norm, but I forgot what is was .... whatever, something is way fucked up !  Yup ....

     Earth is so embarrassing .... who did this to me / you ....  


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  DG had a gripe with

Quote:

  DG had a gripe with Norm, but I forgot what is was .... whatever, something is way fucked up !  Yup ....

His condoning of organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah solely on the basis of their opposition to Israel and the United States.

Additionally, I might suggest that since you are now having a discussion with Kevin about a particular contention, you basically have no choice but to drop the "drunk" format of posts and start adopting more serious and coherent writing style.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
DG , what is the fuel behind

DG , what is the fuel behind the opposition ?

   And why would I want to get "sober", as if fun is a problem ???  I see no rush, except for getting the sober to back off, and giving them an example of simple pleasure. 

   Who makes those menacing laws of life ? 

Coherent ?  I have tracked my many words, and stand by most of them ....  

     What is the enemy and why ?  

   

   


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: - He

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 - He claims America is not a 'true' democracy, and neither are any western nations (logical fallacy), giving no suggestion as to how such a true democracy ought to operate.

 

I've heard this claim before though I can't remember where.  As far as I remember a 'true' democracy is a civilization in which all decisions about the function and running of the country would be put to popular vote.  Parliaments and any type of congress wouldn't be required.  Technically western democracies are actually republics; the populace exhibits a single democratic vote to enable others to make the decisions on their behalf.

That's what I remember at least.  I'll try and figure out where I heard/read it before.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Frankly, I don't understand how it is he's recognized as a leading intellectual.

because of his contribution to the field of linguistics... much of the rest of it seems heavily influenced by his opinions


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As far as I remember a

Quote:

As far as I remember a 'true' democracy is a civilization in which all decisions about the function and running of the country would be put to popular vote.

...This sounds, to put it mildly, highly inefficient. While our current system isn't perfect, it does sort-of work this way, just in a streamlined fashion. Bills are passed by elected representatives, whom you can exert influence on by doing things like writing letters, making phone calls, signing petitions, etc. If they don't pass bills the way you like, you vote for another representative.

Personally, I like this idea far better than the idea of trying to organize, regulate and fund a never-ending stream of polls for every single bill that is proposed.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That sort of "true"

That sort of "true" democracy could not possibly have worked in any sizble country until very recently - it would also involve making sure every citizen has internet access - you'd wake up in the morning and vote on the issues. Still, the only way this would work would be to combine it with the current system - ie citizens would vote on major issues but things like budgeting, etc would still be done by those who are elected.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Still, the only way

Quote:

Still, the only way this would work would be to combine it with the current system - ie citizens would vote on major issues

I think this is the crux of the problem with this kind of proposal:

What criteria do we then use to determine what a 'major issue' is? If anything should be clear by now, it's that everyone is going to have different ideas about what is really important and what isn't (with some overlap). After we're done choosing the pet issues to deal with, there will be a group of somebodys complaining that their issues aren't on the table, and that the new system isn't totally fair.

 

Again, the current system isn't completely transparent, but I think it's simply a more realistic and 'even' means of managing things than doing something like this. If a bill comes up that you feel strongly about, it's just a matter of e-mailing your representative if you want to do things electronically.

 

Matt, you're among the demographic that Chomsky refers to as being really disenfranchised by the current system. Do you think that's true, in your opinion?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not really - I just walk 2

Not really - I just walk 2 blocks to the borough hall when it's time to vote.


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Direct democracy in America = suck

MattShizzle wrote:

That sort of "true" democracy could not possibly have worked in any sizable country until very recently - it would also involve making sure every citizen has internet access - you'd wake up in the morning and vote on the issues. Still, the only way this would work would be to combine it with the current system - ie citizens would vote on major issues but things like budgeting, etc would still be done by those who are elected.

Direct democracy would not be a good idea, even if the Internet facilitated its establishment.  Imagine that you are a mistrusted, misunderstood minority such as... an atheist.  Since the majority is theist, any issues against theism would always be voted down. Basically it would turn America into a nation ruled by white xenophobic theists !

The United States federal government is based on having 3 branches of government with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from having too much power.  This system also helps to prevent minorities from being completely oppressed by the majority by being constitutional republic.  Further, the first 10 articles of said constitution (The Bill of Rights) were enacted to further protect the individual from the power of the federal government.  Reading up on American history would help put all this into perspective.

This system has been pretty successful thus far.  And this November, Americans will get a chance to let their voices be heard concerning the election of a new head of the executive branch (President) and about a third of the members of Congress.  We have freedom of speech to protect the minority, freedom of the press to protect against corruption, et cetera.

A direct democracy sounds great on paper, but in practice you'll only benefit if you are in the majority on all the issues that matter to you.  Thank Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers we don't have such a system.

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Chomsky under the microscope ! ! !

 I AM GOD AS YOU wrote that he never put Chomsky under the microscope , well let's do it ,here are a few links about him ; Wikipedia has a good Bio. on Mikhail Bakunin ,who was also vey influential on the "Young " Chomsky ,and he's a big fan of George Orwell's writing's www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/rbr/rbr2/sp001534.html

           www.chomsky.info/ , www.zmag.org/znet ,and then there's a good article on "capitalism" titled "Bill Gates , Philanthropy , and Social Engineering ? by Michael Barker ,"capitalism for the POOR and SOCIALISM for the rich" is the type of society that we now live in , not a "True Democracy" he's part of ZNet resistance to the same old,same old check it out at www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18198 ' A must Read ! ,and here Chomsky on www.equaltimeforfreethought.org/2007/05/27/show-219-noam-chomsky www.equaltimeforfreethought.org/2007/05/27/show-219-noam-chomsky and then there's a excellent speech that he gave on the Militarization of Science and Space ,mitworld.mit.edu/video/182 and the last link that supports his idea's about "Hegemony or Survival ,www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/article.php .any atheist worth his or her weight in salt should find Noam Chomsky to be by far "the most valuable scholar alive today" from the New York Times, The Boston Globe "Chomsky is the 4th most quoted persons in Human History ~ right up there with Shakespeare ,Marx , and the Bible .

Signature ? How ?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: - He

Kevin R Brown wrote:
- He claims America is not a 'true' democracy, and neither are any western nations (logical fallacy), giving no suggestion as to how such a true democracy ought to operate.
What about slaves? All democracies of old times were based on slavery, like Athens, Rome, and so on. Now we are only unofficial, economic slaves.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
  - He faults capitalism as a failure of a system without suggesting what alternative we should use, and with dubious arguments (it creates an undesirable hierarchical structure, it encourages poverty, it appeals to the lowest possible moral standard, etc)
Capitalism in the form of today is just as evil extreme, as communism in the times of Josif Vissarion Djugashvili, aka Stalin. It just kills millions of people on the other side of the planet, where they're less to be seen.
Political, liberal middle is a fast way to political death. The only good choice is cooperation of capitalism and socialism for the same goal, taking care of different aspects of government.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
  - He champions unions, which economically ruined Britain, apparently failing to take into account the fact that any union is just as easily corrupted as the corporate juggernauts he so despises.
Economic unions (EU for example) are similar to big corporations. If any cooperation should be present, it must be a mutual cooperation of sovereign individual states, not a rule of global market and commerce. Big commerce is the only reason for existence of European Union.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
  - He claims that the U.S. has no right to military intervention, ever (Hi, Neville Chamberlain!), and proposes an extremely weak idea for subduing terrorists (...this is not to say I agree with most military actions conducted by the United States; Americans have made plenty of messes. I will go ahead and vouch for a number of actions aggressively pursued by America as at least well-intentioned. Typically the U.S. is not aiming to kill civilians and sew chaos). It's one thing to look at Iraq and say, 'Okay; big mess. Bush is a criminal for doing this.' It's another to take one incident and conflate it with all others. There are really, really bad people in the world who want to do really, really bad things. A passive stance invites them to make their move (See: World War II).
The reason why there are really bad people in the world is, because the good guys from USA (all the western world is for them USA) took their goats, fields, income, and oil, and parades with all their wealth in front of the poor. If a poor Muslim ever happens to see American TV for a while and some commercial or a serial, it will sure piss him off how people there are awfully rich and poking into their stupid, trivial, emotional problems, while someone's here is trying to stay alive. A typical TV problem like "why does/doesn't Bobby date Jenny?" surely violates a heap of Koran laws.
I think USA should pay war reparations just like Germany had to after WW2.
No new conflict anywhere against anyone will solve anything. Maybe some military actions in past were good, but today all their benefit is outweighed by the huge damage this murderous foreign politics caused.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
  - He applauds Islam, condemns Israel, and takes the stance that Islamic terrorism is a result of modern Western aggression. This is such horse shit. This is what gets me the most. Even the most rudimentary historical knowledge will lend the insight necessary to see that Islamic aggression has always been religiously motivated, and vastly outdates modern incursions into the middle east.

First Crusade 1095-1099 (and about a dozen or two afterwards)
Results of the Crusades on the Islamic World

The Crusades have made a lasting impact on the Islamic world, especially in their perception of the West and of Christians. In fact even today Muslims still consider the Crusades to be a symbol of Western hostility toward Islam.[35] The Muslims were horrified by the brutality of the Franks and how they so willingly massacred civilians and broke promises. It did not help that the Crusaders felt little to no remorse for what they did and when the Muslims compared that to Saladin’s reputation of being a man of honor they thought even less of the Franks.[36] The fact that the Franks were motivated more by politics and greed than true religious reason has led Muslims to feel that when Europe began to colonize the East it was merely a continuation of the Crusades. This view caused the Muslims to set up intellectual barriers and become very isolationist in their policies causing them to be left behind in the world scene.[37] Now extremists of both the Christian and Islamic faith believe that confrontation is inevitable and because of this view the Crusades remain in focus keeping them in an active albeit violent role in contemporary politics.[38]

Who brought us astronomy, mathemathics, chemistry, and so on? Even our favorite alcohol 'al-kuhul' is an arabian word. Muslims were not worse than Christians...in fact, it's diffcult to be worse than Christians were in medieval ages. Maybe Aztec sacrifice cult was worse, but I'm not sure.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
We're infidels to fundamentalist muslims whether or not we're over there dropping bombs. It's tough to take a stance on the Palestinian / Israeli conflict; both sides are guilty of doing rather terrible things to each other, and being maliciously stubborn. Chomsky makes points about the 'totally fair and free' elections in Palestine that the Western nations didn't like because, as he alleges, 'they just voted for the wrong guy'. Of course, this is a grotesque over-simplification; the 'wrong guy' was a total lunatic, voted-in by a population of fundamentalist muslims, who are content to gleefully strap-on explosives and go door to door in Jarusalem!
Yes. Of course Palestinians will vote lunatics and will be extremists, they're being massacred in a slow cultural genocide. So they take bombs because they have no other means to strike back. They blow themselves up in vicinity of innocent Jewish civilians, who doesn't even know what is their government and military doing to Palestinians a few miles from where they live. This is why there's a lot of bad blood on both sides.
Solution? Dunno, but USA should definitely stop using Israel army for washing dirty money, to be used for war, provoking Ahmadinejad, who must react, so USA can say he's a bad guy and they can launch an attack on Iran, which will eliminate most of opposition on Middle east.


Kevin R Brown wrote:
- He contends that all Westerners who talk in terms of wanting to bring modern cultural values to the 3rd world are 'hypocrites' and 'disgraceful'. Apparently I'm supposed to be pandering to the 'equallness' of my lifestyle to that of someone who consciously decides to live in the desert and believes in blowing themselves up to kill 'infidels'.
There are no portable western cultural values, only commerce. Commerce brings poverty to much more people than it brings wealth. It brings wealth to USA, and poverty to the 3rd world.
These people in deserts who blow up themselves and infidels, are in deserts because all they had was taken from them. Often these countries were victims of colonization, and after this era ended, they were left without their masters and without guidance. In some cases, poor people buys Coca Cola and radios instead of food and medicine. Some regimes deserved such a fall, some not, but who's gonna rebuild them?

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Append:

 - He also alleges that 'Big Media' has a vast and complex conspiracy out to brainwash us and tell us who to vote for (which is absurd on a number of levels. EVERY network, and EVERY broadcaster, and EVERY screenwriter, and EVERY cartoonist is out to get us?)

Not every medium... For example, the truth on the internet can't be destroyed, just ridiculed or hidden under a heap of bullshit. The same is for independent press.
But let me tell you something. Because USA-paid Israeli army terrorizes Iran, Iran president has to act, otherwise he'd appear weak. But he's portrayed as Dolph Hitler by media. According to this new threat USA decides to build an outdated radar station in my country and missile station in Poland, to shoot down any missiles which would aim on USA.
Note, that shooting missiles by missiles is an archaism. Today, both Russians and USA has a laser technology installable on airplanes, which, according to Russian claim "can destroy missiles without greater problems." The problem is, that missile must be detected and destroyed right at the place of start, which is done not by a radar, but by a recon and satellites. If this is not done, a missile falls down somewhere and creates a humanitary and ecologic catastrophe. So building a radar+missiles for defense is a shameful lie.

There was a referendum if we, citizens, agree with the building of radar station in our country. From the beginning, about 60-90% of people were against. After all, we've all had seen what and how U.S. army had done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Vietnam, Korea, and so on. We definitely don't want a traditional worldwide agressor humping our national ass, just as Soviets did until 19 years ago and Germans for previous several centuries. You got the point, right??? Czech national pride is more shitty than a trade with beads and mirrors for tribesmen's ivory. The tribesmen at least liked the beads and mirrors. But our politics are like pimps, they do a bad trade and next several days all nation works only to pay a company, not the state and not themselves.
But from the beginning, the radar station was shown as a defense also for central europe (which is a ballistic nonsense) and a protection from a Russian politic pressure. (which is a political nonsense, they had it in communism much worse than we) All demonstrants against the radar station were medially ridiculed and portrayed as a herd of retarded screaming primitives. USA radar station was portrayed so well, that we should beg them to have it built here and we'd pay all expenses. Fuckin' medial burlesque.
Our politics signed these treasonable main contracts in some secluded hotel in mountains, and guess what happened right after. Russians stopped sending the most of oil through the 'Comradery' pipe lines and promised to aim their own missiles on the radar base. (just as they promised since the beginning of all this) The oil stop was officially caused by technical problems...but, well, nobody here really believes that.
By the way, every military base must have an independent source of energy. The only such source is a nuclear reactor. Any agressor who will ever attack the radar, (a logical strategic choice, first thing which will ever happen in any conflict) will blow up the reactor and will make all Czechs glow and mutate, and die. How nice, thanks America! I hope the Oval room is in some very high floor.

I personally don't care about Chomsky much, but if he says that America is full of crap, he is, as was already written, more than half right. Every person I value says the same, we've got a problem.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: - He

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 - He claims America is not a 'true' democracy, and neither are any western nations (logical fallacy), giving no suggestion as to how such a true democracy ought to operate.

In this he is technically correct.  Most Americans conflate their government with a democracy, which it is not.  The US is a republic: they elect representatives, which then go and pass laws on their behalf.  It's somewhat similar to the parliamentary system in that respect.

Switzerland actually has direct democracy for much of its laws.  Laws are passed by general vote, essentially a referendum.  As has been pointed out by others in this thread, though, this probably only works because the population of Switzerland is ~1/5 that of Canada (or ~2% of the US), and only about 7 times larger than the metro Toronto area.

Quote:

 - He faults capitalism as a failure of a system without suggesting what alternative we should use, and with dubious arguments (it creates an undesirable hierarchical structure, it encourages poverty, it appeals to the lowest possible moral standard, etc)

 - He champions unions, which economically ruined Britain, apparently failing to take into account the fact that any union is just as easily corrupted as the corporate juggernauts he so despises.

I both agree and disagree.  Capitalism isn't perfect, but practically every other economic system we've tried has been worse.  As for unions, though, I have to disagree with him almost completely.  I have never been a part of a union that I did not, as a worker, resent.  I think that much of what unions were originally envisioned to do has been accomplished through the passing of labour/OHSA laws, etc, and are clinging to their heyday, slowly becoming irrelevant.

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 A few

 A few clarifications:

Democracy is rule by the people.  In it's most basic conception, one vote for each person regardless of the importance of the issue.  The importance of the issue will be determined by the number of concerned voters.  Democracy has never been practiced on very large scales, like America.

 

Capitalism is the idea that market pressures dictate prices and qualities (some people, myself included believe that Smith believed capitalism was a proof for god).  This also has ~never~ been practiced.  If the market were to really determine the prices of things, then companies wouldn't have the same rights a person has.  The corporate status of a company making it a legal entity safeguarded it from 'the market'.  Government's would never create barriers from 'the market' like loans and tariffs and subsidies.  This sort of corruption of the system led to bigger problems than any union (also very anti-capitalist) ever has (like CEO's getting millions of dollars of year end bonuses the same year they laid off thousands of workers due to budgetary concerns).

 

There's a great syllogism for Democracy:

 

Democracy is rule by the people.

The People are ignorant and superstitious.

QED

 

There are  alternate systems for both democracy and capitalism that are better than either (in a moral sense), but they require people to be mostly altruistic (instead of generally so) and therefore won't be instituted on a large scale anytime in our lifetimes.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: - He

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 - He also alleges that 'Big Media' has a vast and complex conspiracy out to brainwash us and tell us who to vote for (which is absurd on a number of levels. EVERY network, and EVERY broadcaster, and EVERY screenwriter, and EVERY cartoonist is out to get us?)

To a certain extent, this is true. The major media is owned and controlled by a diminishing number of people. Information, misdirection, and misinformation is often used to affect opinion. Important, complex stories are reduced to a biased soundbites. Important information is withheld; trivial information is proferred as "news."

This conspiracy isn't strictly intentional (except in a few rather glaring cases, such as Fox News and such). It's done as a way of increasing excitement in the news, and a way of dumbing down the news so that everyone can understand it, even if that understanding is incomplete or even incorrect.

I could point to a dozen recent examples, such as the constant broadcasting of Rev. Wright's quotes about, "God damn America!" as if it were newsworthy. What's more important is the result: people who refuse to vote for Obama because his middle name is "Hussein." (I talked to one last night.)

This is just one example. There are many, many more.

News media, especially in the US, is terribly corrupt, just not quite in the dark back-room deal way Chomsky mentions. The results, however, are the same.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...Perhaps this wasn't always the case, but his recent ('recent' stretching back a couple of decades now) claims are just... repellent to me. I've been very careful to read his work without simply dismissing what amounts to his very offensive rhetoric out of hand, examining the veracity of what was being said from a logical standpoint (I'm not an academic, so I'm hardly in a real position to check the accuracy of his facts) even if I don't happen to like the words on the paper.

Frankly, I don't understand how it is he's recognized as a leading intellectual.

Some of his facts are certainly wrong (...The IDF is not somehow 'American owned'. The Israelis developed their own tanks, and purchase weaponry and aircraft from a number of sources, including the United States. Saying that an Apache Gunship firing on Hessbollah (sp?) terrorists is an act of American aggression because the helicopter was made in America is like saying that anything I write has American authorship because my word processor was developed in America), and his grand premise of America being an imperial empire is based on (of all things) a No True Scotsman fallacy (America doesn't practice TRUE Democracy!).

His stance on capitalism is strange (...I'm, again, not an academic; whether of not political science actually confirms what he claims I don't know) and rather obnoxious. Apparently the social hierarchy is bad, and unions are golden. But how the Hell does one get away from a hierarchy? It's impossible, realistically. The notion that unions are any less corruptable than the businesses they aim to shackle is absurd (See: Britain).

 

Perhaps this is all just stemming from the fact I'm a layman, and some of his topics are over my head (...though I'm a little dubious).

Thoughts?

You take any individual who is regarded as an intellectual and you will discover a certain amount of horse shit eg. Christopher Hitchens' support of the Iraq war. I consider myself somewhere in between a liberal and a libertarian and I disagree with Chomsky on many of his points and agree with him on others. He was repeatedly been critical of the former Soviet Union so bear in mind that he takes swipes at both conservatives and leftwing ideologues. I place Chomsky in the same camp as George Orwell (and you'll find horse shit in his political writings).

I do consider Chomsky an intellectual given his work in linguistics. He proposed the notion of a Universal Grammar which has a neuroscientific basis. IMO he is worthy of the Nobel Prize.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
TomJ wrote:This system has

TomJ wrote:

This system has been pretty successful thus far.

I'd say very successful. Let's not forget that by "thus far", we also mean that the Greeks and Romans had their versions, and the original American Republic was based on their ancient efforts. The Republic is a highly successful form of government, historically speaking.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:His

Kevin R Brown wrote:
His stance on capitalism is strange (...I'm, again, not an academic; whether of not political science actually confirms what he claims I don't know) and rather obnoxious. Apparently the social hierarchy is bad, and unions are golden. But how the Hell does one get away from a hierarchy? It's impossible, realistically. The notion that unions are any less corruptable than the businesses they aim to shackle is absurd (See: Britain).

Chomsky's anarcho-communist views are interesting, but ultimately strangely naïve. I say "strangely" because his work in linguistics isn't just brilliant, it's a revolution in thinking. He's like the Newton of linguistics. So it's surprising that such a mature mind only thinks of politics in one step: "organize". The funny thing, boys and girls, is that we already are. A culture of systems inherited from German, British, Japanese, and other stereotypically "uptight" countries lead us to great nation-states of organization. But clearly that's not the right organization for Chomsky, who would rather have something else.

That said, his comments on corporations as an organizational structure having widespread disadvantages are valuable. His criticism of corporations in general is a comment on the weakness of that organization, and he has a point. His attacks on capitalism in general are not the strongest.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Perhaps this is all just stemming from the fact I'm a layman, and some of his topics are over my head (...though I'm a little dubious).

No, I don't think they're over your head. Chomsky uses purposefully inflammatory language to get people thinking about issues they'd rather ignore, so sometimes I think he's sensationalist because he knows it works. I often wonder how much of it he believes, and how much of it he's simply throwing out there for effect.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, Will. Combating

Yeah, Will. Combating exaggerations with exaggerations. It's what I often do. It's what RRS often does ....."religion is a mind disorder" etc. I read some of the "red line" Bible Jesus quotes as exaggerations to make a point .... "I have not come to bring peace ...."

"Understand my message or live forever blind in hell on earth" .... "Ye are god(s)"

                      ... how do ya wake up the neighbors ????


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Chomsky & Crusades (Hey, like an RPG!)

As someone perpendicular to the whole Left-Right thing, I consider Chomsky a smart man who has a lot to say... but he is blinded by his own hard-Left ideology; he simply cannot get out of his own way to look at the cold facts of history.

Intellectually, he is in absolute thrall to what I call the Prime Directive of Leftism, which goes like this:

 

The Western World is bad and shameful. America, as its champion and most powerful member, is especially wicked. The more alienated you are from it, the more honorable you are. If you’re an avowed enemy of it, more the better. If you’re part of it or allied to it, you are irredeemably corrupt.

America (and the West in general) gets the blame for everything and the credit for nothing. Those opposed to America, on the other hand, get the benefit of every possible doubt and then some.

 

Chomsky's contemporary writings on the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge regimes illustrate this perfectly. He bends over backwards to "see no evil" at a time when the dire reality of these two Marxist murder-factories was well established. If you think I'm exaggerating, I strongly urge you to actually read his work on these subjects.

Pay special attention to Chomsky's comments following his tour of North Vietnam in 1970 in light of what was, even then, commonly known about the nature of that government.

Like all hidebound ideologues, Chomsky is immune to evidence. As Mark Bauerlein put it in his review of THE ANTI-CHOMSKY READER...

Quote:
All historians know that understanding history is an unfolding enterprise, ever subject to revision. And yet not one revelation of the last 20 years has led to a moment's reassessment by Chomsky. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the opening of KGB archives, testimony by dissidents and ex-Communists--nothing alters his outlook. When Vaclav Havel addressed Congress in 1990 and praised the U.S. for inspiring those under the totalitarian boot, Chomsky scorned this freedom fighter for uttering an "embarrassingly silly and morally repugnant Sunday School sermon in Congress." The truth remained: "In comparison to the conditions imposed by U.S. tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36575.html

A paradise. With rainbow-colored KGB agents riding unicorns and handing out candy, no doubt.

(I invite you to dwell, for a moment, on the spectacle of a comfortable, privileged, tenured Ivy League academic presuming to instruct an authentic revolutionary leader and political prisoner on the true nature of tyranny. This is beyond arrogance; it is downright hallucinatory.)

Is everything Chomsky writes crap? Hardly. But his awareness - and criticism, therefore - is so selective as to be a parody of historical scholarship. He is the egghead version of Walter Duranty.

 

Oh, and regarding the Crusades...

1) As loathsome as they were, the initial efforts were in fact a counter-attack in response to centuries of continual military and territorial aggression by Muslim forces against the Christian West.

2) If the memory of the Crusades scars our Islamic brethren so, where is their hatred of Mongolians? In AD 1258 Hulagu Khan and his Mongol army fell like wolves upon Baghdad to massacre the inhabitants, burn the libraries and wreck the city. The Mongols brought down a Caliphal dynasty - something no Crusader army ever managed - and dealt Arabic culture and politics a blow from which it never recovered. The fall of the Ayyubids cleared the way for the ascension of non-Arabic leadership in the Islamic world; first the Mamluks, then the Ottoman Turks.

3) For that matter, what about the Turks? We hear endlessly about the "colonialism" and "imperialism" of those awful Europeans who took over following the crack-up of the Ottoman Empire. But what about the more than three hundred years during which the Turks lorded their imperial control over the Arabic world - locking them into medievalism and suppressing any kind of intellectual, political or legal development?

Isn't it just possible that the Turkish imperium might have messed Arabic societies up more than a few decades dealing with the French and British?

Nah, the Turks weren't European and/or Christian. Not "White." Fellow Muslims, in fact. Can't blame them! No, it must be those awful Crusaders and their modern proxies, the even-more-awful ZIONISTS! Eye-wink

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
BrainFromArous wrote:As

BrainFromArous wrote:

As someone perpendicular to the whole Left-Right thing, I consider Chomsky a smart man who has a lot to say... but he is blinded by his own hard-Left ideology; he simply cannot get out of his own way to look at the cold facts of history.

Intellectually, he is in absolute thrall to what I call the Prime Directive of Leftism, which goes like this:

 

The Western World is bad and shameful. America, as its champion and most powerful member, is especially wicked. The more alienated you are from it, the more honorable you are. If you’re an avowed enemy of it, more the better. If you’re part of it or allied to it, you are irredeemably corrupt.

America (and the West in general) gets the blame for everything and the credit for nothing. Those opposed to America, on the other hand, get the benefit of every possible doubt and then some.

 

Chomsky's contemporary writings on the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge regimes illustrate this perfectly. He bends over backwards to "see no evil" at a time when the dire reality of these two Marxist murder-factories was well established. If you think I'm exaggerating, I strongly urge you to actually read his work on these subjects.

Pay special attention to Chomsky's comments following his tour of North Vietnam in 1970 in light of what was, even then, commonly known about the nature of that government.

Like all hidebound ideologues, Chomsky is immune to evidence. As Mark Bauerlein put it in his review of THE ANTI-CHOMSKY READER...

Quote:
All historians know that understanding history is an unfolding enterprise, ever subject to revision. And yet not one revelation of the last 20 years has led to a moment's reassessment by Chomsky. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the opening of KGB archives, testimony by dissidents and ex-Communists--nothing alters his outlook. When Vaclav Havel addressed Congress in 1990 and praised the U.S. for inspiring those under the totalitarian boot, Chomsky scorned this freedom fighter for uttering an "embarrassingly silly and morally repugnant Sunday School sermon in Congress." The truth remained: "In comparison to the conditions imposed by U.S. tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36575.html

A paradise. With rainbow-colored KGB agents riding unicorns and handing out candy, no doubt.

(I invite you to dwell, for a moment, on the spectacle of a comfortable, privileged, tenured Ivy League academic presuming to instruct an authentic revolutionary leader and political prisoner on the true nature of tyranny. This is beyond arrogance; it is downright hallucinatory.)

Is everything Chomsky writes crap? Hardly. But his awareness - and criticism, therefore - is so selective as to be a parody of historical scholarship. He is the egghead version of Walter Duranty.

 

Oh, and regarding the Crusades...

1) As loathsome as they were, the initial efforts were in fact a counter-attack in response to centuries of continual military and territorial aggression by Muslim forces against the Christian West.

2) If the memory of the Crusades scars our Islamic brethren so, where is their hatred of Mongolians? In AD 1258 Hulagu Khan and his Mongol army fell like wolves upon Baghdad to massacre the inhabitants, burn the libraries and wreck the city. The Mongols brought down a Caliphal dynasty - something no Crusader army ever managed - and dealt Arabic culture and politics a blow from which it never recovered. The fall of the Ayyubids cleared the way for the ascension of non-Arabic leadership in the Islamic world; first the Mamluks, then the Ottoman Turks.

3) For that matter, what about the Turks? We hear endlessly about the "colonialism" and "imperialism" of those awful Europeans who took over following the crack-up of the Ottoman Empire. But what about the more than three hundred years during which the Turks lorded their imperial control over the Arabic world - locking them into medievalism and suppressing any kind of intellectual, political or legal development?

Isn't it just possible that the Turkish imperium might have messed Arabic societies up more than a few decades dealing with the French and British?

Nah, the Turks weren't European and/or Christian. Not "White." Fellow Muslims, in fact. Can't blame them! No, it must be those awful Crusaders and their modern proxies, the even-more-awful ZIONISTS! Eye-wink

Ummmm.  Nice.  Yeah, nice.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Noam Chomsky is popular

Noam Chomsky is popular because he discovered a new way to analyze language, but he's full of shit if for no other reason than the fact that he's an anarcho-syndicalist  in speech yet a capitalist to the bone in practice. 


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 Kevin R Brown wrote: - He

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 - He faults capitalism as a failure of a system without suggesting what alternative we should use

So what? You can point out problems without having to give alternatives, you can point out problem even if there are no alternatives.

 

balrogoz wrote:
Capitalism is the idea that market pressures dictate prices and qualities.  This also has ~never~ been practiced.

Well this is the standard capitalist argument to the problem of capitalism, that it's never *truly* been practiced, however thats a ref herring. Capitalism in theory sounds great, but in practice it becomes something else. When money is what is important, those with most of it gain power who in turn use the workers to maintain and increase their wealth. It necessarily leads inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: Kevin R Brown

Topher wrote:

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 - He faults capitalism as a failure of a system without suggesting what alternative we should use

So what? You can point out problems without having to give alternatives, you can point out problem even if there are no alternatives.

 

balrogoz wrote:
Capitalism is the idea that market pressures dictate prices and qualities.  This also has ~never~ been practiced.

Well this is the standard capitalist argument to the problem of capitalism, that it's never *truly* been practiced, however thats a ref herring. Capitalism in theory sounds great, but in practice it becomes something else. When money is what is important, those with most of it gain power who in turn use the workers to maintain and increase their wealth. It necessarily leads inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Have I ever read the same red herring when someone mentions communism?  That it's never really been practised?  Can this also be a kind of no true Scotsman fallacy?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well this is the

Quote:

Well this is the standard capitalist argument to the problem of capitalism, that it's never *truly* been practiced, however thats a ref herring. Capitalism in theory sounds great, but in practice it becomes something else. When money is what is important, those with most of it gain power who in turn use the workers to maintain and increase their wealth. It necessarily leads inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

These are problems with people, not simply the system. There will always be a hierarchical structure (this is why Communism fails at a foundational level - 'evenness' is an unattainable goal).

This is most visible to anyone who has studied Game Theory; someone will always necessarily be leading the pack.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Well this is

Topher wrote:

Well this is the standard capitalist argument to the problem of capitalism, that it's never *truly* been practiced, however thats a red herring. Capitalism in theory sounds great, but in practice it becomes something else. When money is what is important, those with most of it gain power who in turn use the workers to maintain and increase their wealth. It necessarily leads inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

As has been said, isn't this a human failing as opposed to one inherent in capitalist or free-market theory?

Do top-down, "command" economies not have this problem? Replace money with some other currency - piety, high position in The Party, etc. - and won't you see the exact same thing?

Confront any true-believing collectivist with the human and social catastrophes of the various Peoples' Republics which blighted the 20th century landscape and the first thing you will hear is, "Well, that wasn't real socialism! They didn't do it properly!"

My defense of capitalism is the same as that of democracy: It's the least bad option.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Topher

Thomathy wrote:

Topher wrote:

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 - He faults capitalism as a failure of a system without suggesting what alternative we should use

So what? You can point out problems without having to give alternatives, you can point out problem even if there are no alternatives.

 

balrogoz wrote:
Capitalism is the idea that market pressures dictate prices and qualities.  This also has ~never~ been practiced.

Well this is the standard capitalist argument to the problem of capitalism, that it's never *truly* been practiced, however thats a ref herring. Capitalism in theory sounds great, but in practice it becomes something else. When money is what is important, those with most of it gain power who in turn use the workers to maintain and increase their wealth. It necessarily leads inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Have I ever read the same red herring when someone mentions communism?  That it's never really been practised?  Can this also be a kind of no true Scotsman fallacy?

The same thing applies to communism - sounds great on paper, but when implemented, it becomes something else. It doesn't work as per its theory.

In my view, no one political/economic system will ever work as per its theory... they all have their problems and benefits, and the best systems are those that take advantage of the benefits, while acknowledging the problems and trying to avoid/minimize them. But to focus on the theory, while ignoring the problems of its implementation (and potential benefits of opposing theories) is to be blinded by ideology.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Topher

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Topher wrote:

Well this is the standard capitalist argument to the problem of capitalism, that it's never *truly* been practiced, however thats a ref herring. Capitalism in theory sounds great, but in practice it becomes something else. When money is what is important, those with most of it gain power who in turn use the workers to maintain and increase their wealth. It necessarily leads inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

These are problems with people, not simply the system. 

 

The system provides the means. The system allows inequality. Thats the very problem.

 
Kevin R Brown wrote:
There will always be a hierarchical structure (this is why Communism fails at a foundational level - 'evenness' is an unattainable goal).
Agreed. However we can, and should, control the gap between the rich and the poor so to not let inequality run rampant.

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
balrogoz wrote:Capitalism is

balrogoz wrote:
Capitalism is the idea that market pressures dictate prices and qualities.  This also has ~never~ been practiced.

Not really. Capitalism is the idea that a person can build a business through private capital investment. The idea that market pressures dictate prices and qualities is called "economics". And when you say "qualities", you mean something completely different in economics.

A capitalist system is one run by private capital investment. There's an implied market there, but it's not necessary to operate the system. "Planned pricing" and "market pricing" are maybe what you're talking about. Planned pricing is known to provide price stability (but be ridiculously counter-productive), and market pricing is known to provide efficient pricing (but be ridiculously volatile). A market with some controls provides some price stability with ease of pricing, but neither perfectly. Thus the popularity of mixed economies.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Two Things

Two things:

(1) Human inequality does not exist because capitalism or any other -ism "allows" for it. It exists because people are diverse and, well, not equal. Even in a world (Movie Voice: IN A WORLD...) where there is no sexism, racism, class privilege or what have you, some people are "winners" more than others. They're smarter, thriftier, more financially astute, more artistically talented, have better judgment - whatever the valued property is, we don't all have the same amount.

Inequality will occur in ANY system or scheme of social organization; it doesn't matter how you shuffle the cards or what the rules of the game are... the cards themselves are not equal to each other.

(2) I would argue that communism does NOT "look good on paper" even as a pure thought experiment. It's kind of like having an approach to clinical psych based on the assumption that telepathy actually exists. Except that we CAN'T read minds so the whole thing falls into wreckage.

Trotsky - who I never thought I'd be quoting, believe you me - absolutely nailed it when he criticized the USSR after the Russian Civil War as having turned into a crypto-feudal throwback wherein supposedly "liberated" proletarians were little more than serfs under the control of an self-perpetuating managerial elite.

What he missed was the inevitability of that or something like it happening. The Marxian ideal of the chrysalis of proletarian dictatorship transforming into the butterfly of stateless communism was not just utopian... it was downright magical. That's why it never happened, won't happen, can't happen and why ever single Marxist regime has been a police state.

Totalitarianism is not merely a transitional phase of societies en route to "pure" communism... it's their Omega Point.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Communism~Utopian ~ Magical

  BrainFromArous wrote that Communism sees it self like a Utopian state ,down right magical thinking . Well first off,I honestly don't believe that any communist see themselves as Utopians,or magical thinkers,after all, communist don't believe in sky daddies,so magical thinking can be put in capitalist societies column,that 's where people give to the church,in order to maintain their delusions.And as for Chomsky,if you have ever read anything that he wrote ,you would understand that he's a socialist libertarian/democratic socialist,like people in Norway or Iceland ,he's into participatory democracy,see Znet.com  Michael Albert blogs. Now under this so-called democratic/capitalism,what do we have ,well let's start with no health care for over 47 million US citizens,corporate lobbyist control our congress,the Military spends more money,than all other militarizes combined~and they have more lobbyist than anyone else~hey I didn't vote for that~Wow it's a wake up call,religious people aren't the only delusional people in this country,they have a lot of friends that believe we live in a DEMOCRACY,it reminds me of what Sam Harris said "moderate religious people fuel the beliefs of the fundamentalist".

Signature ? How ?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well first off,I

Quote:

Well first off,I honestly don't believe that any communist see themselves as Utopians,or magical thinkers

Are you familiar at all with Marxist doctrine? Have you ever, by chance, once glanced at The Communist Manifesto? According to Marxist theory, societal changes come in four stages (feudal to capital to socialist to communist). The fourth state is the end goal of the revolution of the proletariat laid out by Marx. It is the very embodiment of a utopian vision. According to Marxist theory, the end product of the final stage of class struggle should create a classless utopia.

Quote:

communist don't believe in sky daddies

Ever heard of liberation theology?

Quote:

so magical thinking can be put in capitalist societies column,that 's where people give to the church,in order to maintain their delusions.

You are, of course, referring to the notion (which I accept) first put forth by Marx: Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. However, religion is not the only form of magical thinking, and magical thinking is not contingent upon the commitment of the magical thinker to a religious doctrine (that is to say, if some person is a magical thinker, it does not necessarily follow that they will be religious). As such, you're committing a false dichotomy fallacy by holding this position.


 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks N. Chomsky for your

Thanks N. Chomsky for your political bitching.

Things need fixing, improving. Wake up the sleeping sheep neighbors. Let's put are heads together.

    No I did not come to bring peace (appeasement) with the rich authority....

                                          EAT THEM RICH


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 BrainFromArous wrote:(1)

 

BrainFromArous wrote:
(1) Human inequality does not exist because capitalism or any other -ism "allows" for it. It exists because people are diverse and, well, not equal.

Right. But capitalism assumes that people ARE equal. 

 

Capitalism is based on the notion that the wealthy/successful have worked hard and therefore deserve their wealth, while the poor/unsucessful have not bothered and therefore deserve to be where they are, don't deserve help, etc, but this falls apart if the wealthy/successful had unfair advantages to begin with. Many people are born into wealth, while others are born into poverty. Thus they are not equal. Those born into wealth are wealthy simply for being born, and thus have done nothing to deserve their wealth, conversely, those born into poverty are not at fault for being in that situation. Capitalism provides a means for maintaining, if not increasing, this gap.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Capitalism is

Topher wrote:

Capitalism is based on the notion that the wealthy/successful have worked hard and therefore deserve their wealth, while the poor/unsucessful have not bothered and therefore deserve to be where they are, don't deserve help, etc, but this falls apart if the wealthy/successful had unfair advantages to begin with. Many people are born into wealth, while others are born into poverty. Thus they are not equal. Those born into wealth are wealthy simply for being born, and thus have done nothing to deserve their wealth, conversely, those born into poverty are not at fault for being in that situation. Capitalism provides a means for maintaining, if not increasing, this gap.

I think we're mixing "Capitalism" with "Calvinism" a bit here. Calvinism, at least in North America, leads us down the garden path of believing that those who are already wealthy probably deserve it because they worked hard. Capitalism is merely the mechanism for investing in other people's work.

Of course, it's easy to see how our Calvinism could lead us to embrace Capitalism, especially when we find ourselves in the position of living in the wealthiest nations in the world. "We must deserve it!" we can say.

Naturally, our real problem is with the word "deserve". Does someone who works hard always deserve the most? Not if they work on the "wrong" thing ... right?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
TomJ wrote:Basically it

TomJ wrote:

Basically it would turn America into a nation ruled by white xenophobic theists !

And we're not already?


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:TomJ

greek goddess wrote:

TomJ wrote:

Basically it would turn America into a nation ruled by white xenophobic theists !

And we're not already?

I agree that America tends to be that way. If America were a direct democracy, people like us atheists would be outlawed by the majority and so we'd probably all be living in Canada.

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
TomJ wrote:greek goddess

TomJ wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

TomJ wrote:

Basically it would turn America into a nation ruled by white xenophobic theists !

And we're not already?

I agree that America tends to be that way. If America were a direct democracy, people like us atheists would be outlawed by the majority and so we'd probably all be living in Canada.

 

except if by consensus dissenters couldn't migrate out of the country.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Direct Democracy

 TomJ wrote that we Atheist would be outlawed by the majority .,and we would have to move to Canada.~WRONG~ alot of the Atheist countries also have a Direct Democracy just look at the Scandinavian countries that were at one time Christian countries.But through a participatory democratic process,churches are seen as "The Old Way To Control People",so they were more or less Abandoned.                 PS ,someone pointed out "The Anti Chomsky Reader " this book has been found to be a propaganda tool and was funded by the "ADL"who are devout Chomsky haters,even though Chomsky's father was a Jewish scholar,most Jewish people denounce his writings and even though he met with Hamas leader's,that does not disqualify his Philosophy.He supported Hamas because they were Democratically elected to lead the Palestinian people.And he was quoted as saying that he does not support the "Armed wing " of Hamas,but he stands 100% behind their work in giving aid to the people who are suffering or dying.                           

Signature ? How ?


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Scandinatheism and the ADL

Ken G. wrote:

 TomJ wrote that we Atheist would be outlawed by the majority .,and we would have to move to Canada.~WRONG~ alot of the Atheist countries also have a Direct Democracy just look at the Scandinavian countries that were at one time Christian countries.But through a participatory democratic process,churches are seen as "The Old Way To Control People",so they were more or less Abandoned.

    

Would these be the same Scandinavian countries which not only have established state churches but laws requiring the reigning monarchs (if any)  to be members or leaders of them?

Denmark - Danish National Church (Queen Margrethe II)

Finland - Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland / Finnish Orthodox Church

Norway - Church of Norway (King Harald V)

Sweden - Church of Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)

These are "Atheist countries," then? Wow. That would make Vatican City the Galactic HQ of atheism.

Quote:
PS ,someone pointed out "The Anti Chomsky Reader " this book has been found to be a propaganda tool and was funded by the "ADL"who are devout Chomsky haters,even though Chomsky's father was a Jewish scholar,most Jewish people denounce his writings and even though he met with Hamas leader's,that does not disqualify his Philosophy.He supported Hamas because they were Democratically elected to lead the Palestinian people.And he was quoted as saying that he does not support the "Armed wing " of Hamas,but he stands 100% behind their work in giving aid to the people who are suffering or dying.                    

The Anti-Chomsky Reader was published in 2004 by Encounter Books, owned at the time by founder Peter Collier. 

The excerpt I published was from a review at Reason Online, website of the well-known Libertarian political magazine of the same name.

Neither entity has anything to do with the Anti-Defamation League. If there is evidence to the contrary, produce it or retract the accusation.

That aside, the ADL's dislike for Chomsky or anyone else endorsing any aspect of Hamas is quite understandable given Hamas' official declarations about the need to eradicate Israel and its ongoing stance of categorical anti-Jewish hatred.

These ideas are even expressed in their founding charter, which you can read here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

Chomsky has given his critics more than enough rope, as the old saying goes. "Propaganda tools" are hardly necessary to criticize him and in any case, The Anti-Chomsky Reader is no such thing. I encourage the curious to get a copy of the Reader and Chomsky's own writings and see for themselves.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Yep Scandinavian Atheist and the ADL

      BrainFromArous wrote ;do you mean these countries etc......... YEP exactly the same countries ,because if you do a check on church attendance in these countries they're anywhere between 7%-22% not what I would call Religious countries,shit the Soviet Union has a much higher church attendance than any of those countries (2) I will retract the accusation about the anti Chomsky Reader was being funded by the ADL,but only for now,because I do know that they(ADL)have circulated  over 30,000 pages that has been published in many different forms,books,magazines,news papers etc. that try to denounce his writings as a leftist,and unable to see his own mistakes.Now for his support of Hamas- Duh! No wonder the Declaration of Hamas is to eradicate the state of Israel,just look at the facts,read Ilan Pappe' work ,are you familiar with it ?he was a very prominent professor at Haifa University www.factsontheground.co.uk/ and check out his book " The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine "  ilanpappe.com/  along with Norm Finkelstein's work "The Holocaust Industry"and "Beyond Chutzpah:on the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of History "his work can be read at www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php    PS.The link from www.factsontheground.co.uk seem to have problems with the page that has an interview with Ilan Pappe'  .                  

Signature ? How ?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The following new and

The following new and remarkable inventions may be of interest to you:

-Paragraphs

-Syntax

-Grammar

Nobody will take interest in you or what you have to say until you discover these remarkable inventions. Additionally, the fact that all you do on these boards is give links from other people leaves everyone else wondering if you actually have the capacity to construct your own arguments, or indeed, your own complete sentence.

 

Quote:

No wonder the Declaration of Hamas is to eradicate the state of Israel,just look at the facts

I have. Having travelled to Israel, I can tell you it is one of the most remarkable and cutting edge nations on Earth, with one of the highest HDI, quality of life and not to mention the degree of secularism. What they have achieved is absolutely remarkable. They can irrigiate and farm in the desert, their scientific and technological institutions are some of the best on Earth, the first cell phones were created by Israeli companies, Intel, whose products are in virtually every PC, is Israeli. The list goes on. For a tiny nation, in a barren piece of land, surrounded by 100 million hostile people, Israel's achievements rival that of much larger and geographically secure nations. The nucleus of the peoples that would later become Palestine harboured the desire to extermine the Jewish inhabitants of the area long before it was under Israeli control, when it was still under British control, and as such, the muftis were highly sympathetic to the Nazi regime. At any rate, Hamas as an organization was formed long after the Haganah (So was the PLO) (it is probably worthy of note that of the nearly 100 million displaced peoples after WWII, the Arab countries surrounding Israel closed their borders to Palestinian refugees). Whereas Israel has managed to become an industrial and scientific powerhouse, the Gaza strip, under Hamas leadership, has repeatedly driven itself into the ground. This is despite the fact that Israel is surrounded by nearly 100 million hostile people in six hostile states, of which all six attacked Israel in 1967, and lost (and lost twice more). The Israelis refuse to negotiate with Hamas for the obvious reason that within the Hamas charter there is the decleration of intent to eradicate Israel and the refusal to recognize it as a nation-state. As such, how could the Israelis possibly negotiate with them? Indeed, this is the precise reason why Israel doesn't negotiate with them. I can certainly see why. Israel really is the sort of country you should visit before judging.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:D&D AND RPGS ARE

Quote:

D&D AND RPGS ARE SATANIC AND THERE IS A MASSIVE SATANTIC CONSPIRACY NETWORK OUT TO GET OUR CHILDREN!' 'BIG SCIENCE IS OUT TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR ORIGINS / GOD!' 'THE JEWS STOLE ALL OF GERMANY'S WEALTH AND WE MUST FIND A FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH PROBLEM!' 'BIG GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US AND PLANNED 9/11 AND BRAINWASHES US IN OUR SLEEP!' 'NASA KNOWS ABOUT THE ALIENS AND UFOS ARE REAL AND THEY WANT TO HIDE OUR NEW FRIENDS FROM SPACE FROM US!' etc ) are fundamentally flawed:

There is no real collective effort. What we see as collective efforts are actually emergent behaviors resulting from the acts of individuals. We would need to assume that EVERY SINGLE PERSON involved in these agencies is therefore also somehow tied to the conspiracy. This is an outrageous accusation, and frankly, an offensive one.

Totally agreed. The spread of such nonsense is remarkable. Obviously certain ones like "the evil scientific community is suppressing Intelligent Design" are a particular affront to me. Many of the aforementioned conspiracy theories arose as ad hoc justifications for why certain ridiculous ideas were not accepted. How many of the people who make assertions about the "evil scientific community" actually know any science? Any basic evolutionary biology? How many members of the animal rights movement who decry animal testing and consider it useless have actually spent time in a real lab? How many 9/11 conspiracy junkies know any basic mechanical engineering or simple Newtonian physics? Of course, there will be a small number of people falling into these categories, and as such, a large number of nutcases tend to rally around these people, but not because they think their arguments are good (for example, suppose you believed 9/11 was a conspiracy, and you cited a physics professor who believed the same. How would you, not knowing any mechanical engineering, be able to confidently declare within your epistemic rights that his argument is good? For all you know, it might be crap. This was the inspiration for my quote, the principle expressed therein is supremely important). It is my general observation that if people took their epistemic responsibilities to know what they were talking about prior to making an assertion as seriously as their freedoms to spew whatever nonsense may come to mind, the world would be a better place. "My belief that AIDs isn't caused by HIV isn't accepted? Well then, of course the evil molecular biologist/drug companies/etc. ad infinitum are suppressing it. Surely, it can't be because my knowledge of molecular biology, virology and such is nonexistent and as such I have absolutely no knowledge of the intimate scientific understanding of the HIV virus and the resulting Acquired Immune Deficieny Syndrome. That's preposterous!"

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism