|
|
Post by LGBT Anarchist on Jan 29, 2016 19:52:40 GMT
I'm reading Chomsky on Anarchism and it's pretty good, helped clear some things up for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scandinavianpartisan on Jan 29, 2016 20:46:38 GMT
Kropotkin is better
|
|
anpacklaus
LSA Member
"Sometimes I sits and thinks. Other times I sits and drinks, but mostly I just sits." -Neal Cassady
Posts: 84 
|
Post by anpacklaus on Jan 29, 2016 22:36:53 GMT
Chomsky is a bit less radical than a typical anarchist, however, his interpretation of anarchic ideology is quite good, as it concerns the modern world in a much better way than older anarchists do. Kropotkin is definitely more concise in his views than Noam, however, Noam is a political theorist as a secondary career, the man is probably the greatest linguist alive, so you have to respect that. His opinions on foreign policy are quite great.
Where he is better than Kropotkin, is how he intends to keep an anarchist system once it is established.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasper DarkHand on Jan 29, 2016 23:53:41 GMT
He's made significant contributions in regards to modernizing anarchist thought, but many of the criticisms of his being too close to PC liberalism are valid. He often takes positions that are downright embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Post by LGBT Anarchist on Jan 30, 2016 16:53:03 GMT
Chomsky is a bit less radical than a typical anarchist, however, his interpretation of anarchic ideology is quite good, as it concerns the modern world in a much better way than older anarchists do. Kropotkin is definitely more concise in his views than Noam, however, Noam is a political theorist as a secondary career, the man is probably the greatest linguist alive, so you have to respect that. His opinions on foreign policy are quite great. Where he is better than Kropotkin, is how he intends to keep an anarchist system once it is established. That seems to be true. His one description on Anarchism was beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by LGBT Anarchist on Jan 30, 2016 16:53:19 GMT
He's made significant contributions in regards to modernizing anarchist thought, but many of the criticisms of his being too close to PC liberalism are valid. He often takes positions that are downright embarrassing. Examples being? |
|
caspertheanarchist
LSA Member
The Friendly Cuck
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years
Posts: 116
|
Post by caspertheanarchist on Jan 30, 2016 23:25:36 GMT
He's made significant contributions in regards to modernizing anarchist thought, but many of the criticisms of his being too close to PC liberalism are valid. He often takes positions that are downright embarrassing. Examples being? saying that he would support Hillary Clinton in the general election, and campaigning for Bernie Sanders. |
|
|
|
Post by somethingimpromptu on Jan 31, 2016 4:45:53 GMT
I love Chomsky. I think he can be a boring writer, because his material can be dry (though dense with facts, citations, and agreeable arguments). I love listening to his interviews, lectures, and debates on YouTube. I highly recommend anything he's done on the Propaganda Model of Western media, US imperialism, Leninism, anarchism/anarchosyndicalism... Really, most videos of him are worth watching. I would give the tip that some of his stuff when he was younger (in the 1970s-1990s) is really spectacular, but this guy has stayed strong. He speaks slower now is the only thing.
I do differ on a few issues. Most significantly, his absolute dismissal of alternative theories on 9/11. He talks about other state conspiracies, like Lockerbie, COINTELPRO, and (if I recall) the Bay of Tonkin, but, for some reason he insists that there is no reason to criticize the official version. I was unskeptical and just took it for granted until maybe 2014, but I have seen way too much evidence since then to agree.
The other thing is, he will sometimes say that the US state is very restricted in its ability to use violence against its own people (hence using propaganda more broadly in its place)... But then, in the same breath, he will acknowledge that "America has an exceptionally violent labor history." In my opinion, the US government just doesn't often have to use violence/force against it's people directly, because of the rate of conformity they've achieved by propaganda, despite state violence being implicit as a mechanism of control at every turn. The violence at every point of resistance in our labor history that our state is not, in fact, restrained, in its ability to use violence when it wants/needs to.
|
|
|
|
Post by LGBT Anarchist on Feb 1, 2016 19:57:16 GMT
saying that he would support Hillary Clinton in the general election, and campaigning for Bernie Sanders. Oh that's not good haha. |
|
|
|
Post by LGBT Anarchist on Feb 1, 2016 19:58:02 GMT
I love Chomsky. I think he can be a boring writer, because his material can be dry (though dense with facts, citations, and agreeable arguments). I love listening to his interviews, lectures, and debates on YouTube. I highly recommend anything he's done on the Propaganda Model of Western media, US imperialism, Leninism, anarchism/anarchosyndicalism... Really, most videos of him are worth watching. I would give the tip that some of his stuff when he was younger (in the 1970s-1990s) is really spectacular, but this guy has stayed strong. He speaks slower now is the only thing. I do differ on a few issues. Most significantly, his absolute dismissal of alternative theories on 9/11. He talks about other state conspiracies, like Lockerbie, COINTELPRO, and (if I recall) the Bay of Tonkin, but, for some reason he insists that there is no reason to criticize the official version. I was unskeptical and just took it for granted until maybe 2014, but I have seen way too much evidence since then to agree. The other thing is, he will sometimes say that the US state is very restricted in its ability to use violence against its own people (hence using propaganda more broadly in its place)... But then, in the same breath, he will acknowledge that "America has an exceptionally violent labor history." In my opinion, the US government just doesn't often have to use violence/force against it's people directly, because of the rate of conformity they've achieved by propaganda, despite state violence being implicit as a mechanism of control at every turn. The violence at every point of resistance in our labor history that our state is not, in fact, restrained, in its ability to use violence when it wants/needs to. Absolutely agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasper DarkHand on Feb 2, 2016 23:02:13 GMT
He also seems to have a disdain for any sort of armed rebellion. I admire the man for his contributions but many of his statements are down right embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Post by politcalpunkperson on Feb 3, 2016 3:20:33 GMT
Good but not left enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by somethingimpromptu on Feb 3, 2016 3:32:49 GMT
He also seems to have a disdain for any sort of armed rebellion. I admire the man for his contributions but many of his statements are down right embarrassing. He has stated explicitly that he is not strictly a pacifist, he idolizes the Spanish anarchist revolution (which was certainly militant and revolutionary), and he has expressed support for the Zapatistas, the Sandanistas, and other revolutionary/armed resistance groups. He is definitely against terrorism and aggression, committed by either end of the spectrum, but I wouldn't say he disdains any armed rebellion. I am not sure where I heard it, but I am almost positive that he expressed his stance as follows: the burden of proof that an act of violence is necessary always falls on any individual or group that advocates or uses violence. If I'm remembering that correctly (and I think I am), that position on violence seems to me to fall into an appropriately grey area. He does occasionally say things that I strongly disagree with, but much more often, he gives powerful, evidence/citation-laden arguments for ideas I agree with. |
|
anpacklaus
LSA Member
"Sometimes I sits and thinks. Other times I sits and drinks, but mostly I just sits." -Neal Cassady
Posts: 84
|
Post by anpacklaus on Feb 3, 2016 17:03:03 GMT
Idk, guys. I'd say I almost completely agree with him on everything. Being an an-pac, I find armed rebellion to be necessary, however, not preferable. And I do believe he is wrong in identifying as an Anarcho-syndicalist; he's a lot more of an anarcho-pacifist than anything. But he certainly shares the vast majority of issues on this site. Also, his writing and speeches are the type that are incredibly persuasive. Before reading him, I was a conservative. (Shhh, don't tell anyone). But when I read his essays, I was immediately snapped out of this propaganda machine and thrust into real skeptical thought. He is basically the voice of Palestine in the western world. Plus, he actually attended an anarchist type of school when he was a child, and graduated onto high school at age 12. So he is living proof that anarchist education works, being that he is probably the greatest linguist of his generation.
|
|
|
|
Post by somethingimpromptu on Feb 3, 2016 19:38:09 GMT
Idk, guys. I'd say I almost completely agree with him on everything. Being an an-pac, I find armed rebellion to be necessary, however, not preferable. And I do believe he is wrong in identifying as an Anarcho-syndicalist; he's a lot more of an anarcho-pacifist than anything. But he certainly shares the vast majority of issues on this site. Also, his writing and speeches are the type that are incredibly persuasive. Before reading him, I was a conservative. (Shhh, don't tell anyone). But when I read his essays, I was immediately snapped out of this propaganda machine and thrust into real skeptical thought. He is basically the voice of Palestine in the western world. Plus, he actually attended an anarchist type of school when he was a child, and graduated onto high school at age 12. So he is living proof that anarchist education works, being that he is probably the greatest linguist of his generation. I think anyone in their right mind who thinks violence is necessary in revolutionary circumstances also thinks violence should be minimized wherever possible (I know there are those who think, to quote a note by Stalin, "Terror is the quickest way to a new society," but I am grouping people who defend terrorism as not being in their right mind). I don't think that makes someone a pacifist. To my understanding, a true pacifist would rather let themselves be brutalized than fight back, and certainly wouldn't say "Well, in a revolution, some kinds of violence could be okay." Otherwise, I agree with you completely about Chomsky. On education, I think his talks about Paulo Freire introduced me to the idea of critical pedagogy (which he outlines in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed), and I think that this is absolutely key to creating a liberatory educational system which equips people to be problem-solvers, defenders of others, participants in a true democracy, and owners of their own economic institutions (in other words, a really anarchist education system). Freire's idea is essentially that an education is always either limiting-- an imposition of the oppressor on the oppressed (such as our Western education system, which turns "education" into job-training), a form of brainwashing based on memorization of selective facts handed down to us-- or it is liberatory, based fundamentally on instilling us with critical skills. These skills give us the ability to self-teach, expanding education far outside of the classroom; to reject the ideologies of the oppressors and to form our own beliefs; to determine our picture of the world by accepting those sources which make it through the filter of our critical thought, and rejecting those which we can see are meant to manipulate us (whether they are conscious propaganda, biased, based on false assumptions, or whatever the case may be). Chomsky went to a Deweyist (Deweyite?) school-- one based on the educational theories of progressive John Dewey (here's an interview where Chomsky addresses this). These schools definitely are based on a similar values (the intention of producing creative, self-motivated, critical human beings). I think the main difference is that Freire's system is much more centrally intended to emancipate people from exploitation and manipulation by oppressors, where Dewey doesn't base his very similar conclusions on class consciousness and awareness of issues like imperialism/colonialism. I would've loved to go to either type of school though. I mean, can you imagine, if everyone got this kind of education?? I think this is an important, concrete, and very achievable stepping-stone towards a utopian kind of society. |
|
