21–30 of 59 posts
"everyone specializes in what he is worst at"
Chomsky is no exception. For a brilliant linguist, he know little of economics. Chomsky is known to advocate anarcho-syndicalism, which seem to be "democratic"(Which I believe to percisely opposite to the anarchistic etho)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I passionately disagree that the intellectual must remain dispassionate. But what you are saying is in fact considered a rarely challenged truism in humanities departments. It is considered very distasteful for an academic to speak publicly about current events, politics, or really anything controversial. But I think, and I know there is a very strong anti-academic current here on HN, that the intellectual plays a si…
Being passionate != thinking you're right about everything.
CHOMSKY: First of all, I'm usually fuming inside, so what you see on the outside isn't necessarily what's inside. But as far as questions, the only thing I ever get irritated about is elite intellectuals, the stuff they do I do find irritating. Oh, the irony
I don't trust a scientist who's "usually fuming inside". People who fume inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything, which is not an appropriate disposition for a scholar.
I invoked Rothbard's Law. "everyone specializes in what he is worst at" Chomsky is no exception. For a brilliant linguist, he know little of economics. Chomsky is known to advocate anarcho-syndicalism, which seem to be "democratic"(Which I believe to percisely opposite to the anarchistic etho)
Um, you know nothing about anarchism. The first person to call himself an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whose most famous line is "property is theft". The first international was made up primarily of communists, led by Marx, and anarchists, led by Bakunin. Bakunin and the anarchists split from the international because they thought Marx's ideas would lead to totalitarianism. Bakunin's famous line is (paraphrasing):
"freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"
Democratic may be the opposite of what you think of as anarchism, but what you think of as anarchism has no basis in history. You should probably choose a different word.
The anarchists who fought against Franco in the Spanish civil war, and who for a brief moment actually implemented anarchism in the real world, were explicitly anarcho-syndicalists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe there is a "showdead" feature. Seriously, tho', Chomsky ? Would an Ann Coulter diatribe last as long?
I love the idea that Chomsky fills the Coulter niche for a certain audience.
Michael Moore is the closest I could come up with. What makes Coulter unique is that she actively tries to offend liberals. I can't really think of anyone famous for trying to offend conservatives (although lots of people have become "almost famous" that way.)
I invoked Rothbard's Law. "everyone specializes in what he is worst at" Chomsky is no exception. For a brilliant linguist, he know little of economics. Chomsky is known to advocate anarcho-syndicalism, which seem to be "democratic"(Which I believe to percisely opposite to the anarchistic etho)
This is true, but he doesn't claim to know much about economics. He pretty explicitly doesn't care about economics. He's the De Morgan dual of right-wingers who care only about productivity growth and don't care at all about distribution issues.
Given that, everything he says about the popular (mis-)understanding of Adam Smith is true.
EDIT: take for example this hacker news thread ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=489024 ) where:
1. a guy posits Adam Smith's labor theory of value
2. gets told he should read Adam Smith to correct his mistaken ideas
3. quotes Adam Smith to back up his previous statement
4. gets told he's misinterpreting something
It's crazy really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't trust a scientist who's "usually fuming inside". People who fume inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything, which is not an appropriate disposition for a scholar.
"People who fume inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything" How does that follow?
I invoked Rothbard's Law. "everyone specializes in what he is worst at" Chomsky is no exception. For a brilliant linguist, he know little of economics. Chomsky is known to advocate anarcho-syndicalism, which seem to be "democratic"(Which I believe to percisely opposite to the anarchistic etho)
Chomsky is known to advocate anarcho-syndicalism, which seem to be democratic (Which I believe to percisely opposite to the anarchistic etho) Um, you know nothing about anarchism. The first person to call himself an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whose most famous line is "property is theft". The first international was made up primarily of communists, led by Marx, and anarchists, led by Bakunin. Bakunin and t…
I know about the Spanish civil war and Proudhourn as well the socialist heritage of anarchism thank you very much!
The only thing anarchists of different stride have in common with each other is they accuse each other of being non-anarchists. Thus the attempt to define each other out of existence.
(I consider democracy evil because it is two wolf and one sheep deciding what to eat for dinner)