Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

uanews.arizona.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 185 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#51

Post by njs12345 »

phowat wrote: post #18
otalp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Venezuela is very far from the government he prefers. In fact it's close to the exact opposite, since he's an an anarchist and vocal critic of Lenin and Stalin. He however supports the rights of Latin American countries to elect their own government over CIA backed dictators who privatise resources and funnel out a country's wealth. The fact that social democratic countries in Latin America have overall had better de…

Which social democracy is doing well here in south america? We are currently paying the price for all the post-socialist economical measures here in Brazil.It's not pretty.

Ecuador didn't do too badly under Correa: http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/ecuador-2017-02.pdf

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#52

Post by shoo »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #24
otalp wrote: post #2

He's 88, still mentally very sharp and probably moved there for the weather(aside from the great department filled with old students). His work ethic is incredible, he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public- I've received a detailed response every time I've sent one. The amount of time he spends engaging with even terribly misinformed(but well meaning) people is truly astounding, and unparalleled a…

>His work ethic is incredible >he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public Since I read Deep Work, I think these phrases contradict each other. You don't do original, interesting work when replying emails.

there can be value in unoriginal boring work

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#53

Post by nl »

galacticpony2 wrote: post #47
RobertoG wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky opinion about Venezuela is not so difficult to understand if we make a honest effort. Unfortunately a honest effort, as reflected by your link, is not very common. Chomsky supported initially Chavez, (who, by the way, and not as your link insinuate, was democratically elected), because his government initially improved the conditions of the most humble people in the country. People that lived in misery in one…

> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them. That doesn't just happen "frequently", it has happened in 100% of socialist countries after the "revolution". The "critics" then get silenced or killed, unless they happen to (ironically) be sitting in a comfortable chair in an imperialist capitalist country such as the USA, like Chomsky. You'd think…

Can you define what you mean by socialist?

It seems to me that critics of the government in non-democratic countries are the ones in danger, while the ones in democracies aren't, even in socialist democracies (eg, Scandinavia).

If you don't consider these countries socialist that's ok, but the danger government critics are in within non-socialist dictatorships is something worth considering.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#54

Post by icantdrive55 »

BuckRogers wrote: post #8
cooper12 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy shit that link you shared was so frustrating to read. To think of all the productive things a great intellectual like Chomsky could be doing with his time. Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC"). He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times to…

That's why whenever I speak to someone and they have a strong opinion I like to ask them how many books they've read on that subject. It's almost always zero. You can pretty much instantly discard anyone like that as it's a decent baseline litmus test. If you really cared about something, you would read at least one if not multiple books on the subject. Anything less is just laziness and someone who wants to get an e…

I don't think it's quantity, it's the quality of just one honest book, or study. (It's 4:53 in the morning and my blood pressure just went up thinking about how they lie with ststiatics, and bad studies. Hacker News is an addiction.)

I was taught, and read in multiple text books the Civil War was primarily about Slavery, and how wrong they thought it was.

The war was about primarily about slavery, but not because caring northern Americans cared about their wellbeing.

Years later, reading the right books, I find out it was way more about differences over tariffs, and internal improvements, blundering politicians, and the huge difference of opinion between the agrarian South, and the industrial north.

Hell--Trump was right about Jefferson, and Lincoln owning slaves. (We hate the man so much--we can't agree when he has a point right?). Wall Street was once a place people could trade slaves. And northerners had their slaves too.

I probally should even brought up slavery. We should just put it to rest. But, in other areas of history, or theories we should strive for the truth, and nothing but the truth.

So many supposed truths are hanging by a thread, and only keep being repeated because it usually benefits some entity financially.

Yea, my personal, life long gripe is what certain licensed professional healers have gotten away with. If I was a minority, it would be racism, but I'm a clueless white guy. I have seen what these doctors have gotten away with, and don't like it.

I do see racism daily and hate it.

I believe the disparity of wealth is more important for all of society at this point, but the percenter's don't like it when we talk about the wealthy?

Even here--I've been chastised about it. Some moderator emailed me at home. It wasen't under this name though, but it surprised me. I told the little chit to not do it again. I never was a TOS years ago. Yea, try to block my ip. Child's play at this point. I will always get through on important topics.

If you have nothing to hide, let's talk about how family money doesn't help.

(Got off topic, and not coming back for a few days. Hacker News is great. I sometimes wonder if people realsize how revolutionary this site is? A person writes an article. Then it's debated into the ground. We still can't be totally honest though? Now, we don't want to offend the rich white guys? That one bothers me.)

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#55

Post by rhaps0dy »

chrisbennet wrote: post #28
rhaps0dy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>His work ethic is incredible >he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public Since I read Deep Work, I think these phrases contradict each other. You don't do original, interesting work when replying emails.

work eth·ic, noun, the principle that hard work is intrinsically virtuous or worthy of reward. (I didn't down vote you)

I see. That's not quite the definition I was using in my head. According to that, if the emails are very well thought-out and written, it _is_ still hard work...

I assumed that, for a work ethic, it had to be as useful as possible too.

Oh well, thanks for correcting my mistake.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#56

Post by throw_awayfwerq »

galacticpony2 wrote: post #47
RobertoG wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky opinion about Venezuela is not so difficult to understand if we make a honest effort. Unfortunately a honest effort, as reflected by your link, is not very common. Chomsky supported initially Chavez, (who, by the way, and not as your link insinuate, was democratically elected), because his government initially improved the conditions of the most humble people in the country. People that lived in misery in one…

> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them. That doesn't just happen "frequently", it has happened in 100% of socialist countries after the "revolution". The "critics" then get silenced or killed, unless they happen to (ironically) be sitting in a comfortable chair in an imperialist capitalist country such as the USA, like Chomsky. You'd think…

Well you can say the same for supposedly capitalist countries. I mean US elections are a farse of external (no, not the russians) buying our elections for their economic or geopolitical purposes.

Now riddle me this. Name me one failed socialist country that failed (as I believe all will) without massive Western intervention to ruin their economy. We're kinda pricks, aren't we?

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#57

Post by jordigh »

otalp wrote: post #2

He's 88, still mentally very sharp and probably moved there for the weather(aside from the great department filled with old students). His work ethic is incredible, he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public- I've received a detailed response every time I've sent one. The amount of time he spends engaging with even terribly misinformed(but well meaning) people is truly astounding, and unparalleled a…

> he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public

rms, another MIT "affiliate", is like this too, although many of his replies are brief. Whenever you see him cracking open his laptop while he's sitting on a panel waiting for his turn to speak, he's almost surely answering email.

Here are pictures of him answering email around the world:

https://rms.sexy/

I call this one, "The Birth of Emacs": http://stallman.org/photos/rms-working/pages/13.html

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#58

Post by RobertoG »

throw_awayfwerq wrote: post #56
galacticpony2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them. That doesn't just happen "frequently", it has happened in 100% of socialist countries after the "revolution". The "critics" then get silenced or killed, unless they happen to (ironically) be sitting in a comfortable chair in an imperialist capitalist country such as the USA, like Chomsky. You'd think…

Well you can say the same for supposedly capitalist countries. I mean US elections are a farse of external (no, not the russians) buying our elections for their economic or geopolitical purposes. Now riddle me this. Name me one failed socialist country that failed (as I believe all will) without massive Western intervention to ruin their economy. We're kinda pricks, aren't we?

I don't think it's fair to blame external influence always in those cases. It's not honest.

Venezuela's situation main blame should go, in my opinion, to the people in charge in Venezuela. My impression, is that they really don't know what they are doing. Never liked Chavez, but compared to the current one, the guy was a genius.

Other countries have showed that you can work discretely and apply politics that help the vast majority of the population instead of a few elites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa#General_Balance_...

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#59

Post by ue_ »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #27
ue_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, redistribution isn't a Socialist policy; if the workers (proletariat) control and own the social means of production, i.e not a state which is clearly not under control of the workers (i.e not a dictatorship of the proletariat ) then redistribition would not be necessary unless agreed to on a voluntary basis by the community. Instead, we see there is still wage labour. Thrre is still money, whic…

Sounds like you are talking about a pure idealized version of socialism. However, I referred to Venezuela as an example of state socialism . Let me quote the wiki article so we both know we are talking about the same thing: "State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from…

>"State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself..."

I agree that this can exist and has the potential to exist, and the usage of the state temporarily to secure the power of the proletariat (their dictatorship) was something espoused by Marx and Engels. The issue is that it requires the proletariat as a whole to be in control of this state; at the moment, the state is run not by workers but by people who are acting as bourgeois on a global scale - buying and selling in a capitalist economy, trading commodities. They employ wage labour. As such, Venezuela does not operate a state Socialist system.

There is some confusion around the meaning of Socialism; in Marx's day, the word 'Socialism' and 'Communism' were synonymous, though Marx distinguished between lower and higher stages of Communism. The idea that Socialism is a form of state in the first place I am willing to concede, though this is largely a Leninist invention.

>So there still may be private capital, prices, money, and other things like redistribution in a state socialist country.

I don't know if I agree; the key component of a Socialist economy is outlined by what doesn't exist in the capitalist economy, namely in particular the absence of the law of value, which prescribes that commodities have both exchange and use value; if production is predominantly focused such that use values, but not exchange value is being produced (i.e we have products rather than the specific form of product, commodity) then it can be said that the workers own the means of production, that they are not paid wages in order to exchange products. Socialism is the breaking of Marx's chain of exchange (M-C-M').

The nationalisation of industry is conducted in the transition of power from the bourgeois state to the proletarian state (which necessarily incorporates proletarian democracy); however as soon as this transfer of power is complete, the state should start dismantling, withering away is Engels put it.

And we do not see this happening in Venezuela. The state continues to trade on a global scale (oil etc.), employing wage labour (showing that the state is not in the control of the workers) and is thus not Socialist. If you can find any major Socialist theorist who is in support of wage labour within a Socialist economy, I'd be surprised.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#60

Post by ArialAnemone »

shkibb wrote: post #44

Does anybody else find these sorts of discussions to be just fundamentally cringey as hell? On both sides. Stuff like "We agree mainstream black culture is terrible." Like I don't think either would have the guts to say that in front of a black person.

How could it not be terrible? Black america is screwed. The rate of fatherlessness is apocalyptic. Especially when you combine that with the fact that single parent households, with the mother as the parent, produce far more criminals and mentally ill per "family" than households with both parents.

Black america is screwed to be a perpetual underclass. imo.

Post reply on HN