RIP Noam Chomsky .... not quite

Doesn't alter my opinion of him.

He possessed genius intellect. He was highly influential in his field of linguistics.

It's not arguable that he was a great intellect or that he left an indelible mark on the world..

Your opinion of him comes from a place of insecurity.
 
I used to have a character that I used to perform to my son when he was between the ages of 4 and 6. He was called Norman Normington. And he was very normal. And boring. And I sometimes used to threaten my lad that I’d turn into Norman Normington if he didn’t behave himself.

It was pretty effective tbf.
 
Chomsky abided by what one might call a plain-speaking Marxism, even though he generally decried such labels. At the core of it was a simple proposition: in any modern market society, political power flows from economic power, and economic power rests in the hands of the holders of capital. It follows that politics will be dominated by these holders of capital, and they will use their considerable resources to bend the political process to their own ends. And what are these ends? He liked to quote Adam Smith, whom he took to be one of the most perceptive theorists of capitalism: the holders of wealth, Smith observed, follow “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves, and nothing for other people.” This “vile maxim,” Chomsky pointed out, ought to be the anchor for any political analysis of modern society.

This amounted to a simple and basic theory of the state, both for analyzing domestic affairs and also foreign policy. In both domains, we should expect to find that parties, organizations, and institutions are shaped and reshaped around the economic interests of the ruling class, not the general public. And these interests he took to be the overriding prioritization of profit above all else, whatever its cost — human and environmental.

Rishi Sunak likes this
 
gnome-1024x758.png
 
Chomsky abided by what one might call a plain-speaking Marxism, even though he generally decried such labels. At the core of it was a simple proposition: in any modern market society, political power flows from economic power, and economic power rests in the hands of the holders of capital. It follows that politics will be dominated by these holders of capital, and they will use their considerable resources to bend the political process to their own ends. And what are these ends? He liked to quote Adam Smith, whom he took to be one of the most perceptive theorists of capitalism: the holders of wealth, Smith observed, follow “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves, and nothing for other people.” This “vile maxim,” Chomsky pointed out, ought to be the anchor for any political analysis of modern society.

This amounted to a simple and basic theory of the state, both for analyzing domestic affairs and also foreign policy. In both domains, we should expect to find that parties, organizations, and institutions are shaped and reshaped around the economic interests of the ruling class, not the general public. And these interests he took to be the overriding prioritization of profit above all else, whatever its cost — human and environmental.

There's nothing new or revelatory in that though is there? It's Marxism 101 that economic power lies with the holders of capital or rentier class.

He only seemed to see the problems, not the solutions. A polemicist not a philosopher.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.