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

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#71

Post by galacticpony2 »

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?

Define "massive Western intervention" first. Socialist policy at one point in history ruled half the world's economy. You'd think at that size, if those policies made any sense, it should be able to do fine even without the West.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#72

Post by galacticpony2 »

nl wrote: post #53
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…

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.

> Can you define what you mean by socialist?

Apparently, anything that fails eventually is not socialist. Hence, "No True Scotsman".

> 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.

I don't consider these countries socialist. They're not "socialist democracies" (no such thing exists as far as I can see). They're commonly called "social democracies", but that's because the word "social" is political capital. The word "socialist" on the other hand is rather toxic, so most of the mainstream left parties call themselves "social democratic". They may have a bit of "socialist" policy, but not much more so than e.g. the US. Their economic system is fundamentally capitalist.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#73

Post by kenjackson »

thethirdone wrote: post #13
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…

> 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"). Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. In many places, he does not respond to the probing questions asked of him at all (this is assuming the poster didn't add them in afterwards) instead opting to insult…

Chomsky had stated earlier that there are experts to read who cover such things. The kid kept asking variations of the same question. If I were Chomsky I would have been done after a couple of responses.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#74

Post by boomboomsubban »

geezerjay wrote: post #49
AlexCoventry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some crucial factor in Venezuela's woes which clearly arises from socialism? It seems likely that the US will soon become the latest demonstration that corruption can damage a country with any form of government. Chomsky identifies that as the problem in Venezuela, which I find plausible. https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_...

> Is there some crucial factor in Venezuela's woes which clearly arises from socialism? Ah, the never-ending cycle of socialist revolution, followed by establishing socialism, and finally followed by a string of desperate attempts to pin the effects of socialism because no true socialists would ever do any wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Or the realization that capitalist Venezuela had a worse version of this same crisis. Why are the socialist policies to blame this time?

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#75

Post by ant6n »

eighthnate wrote: post #67
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #5

Chomsky is a great critic of social issues like imperialism, manufactured consent, and state capitalism. However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this.

> However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this. Doesn't the problems with state socialism result from being attack by state capitalism which tend to be much stronger nations? The US and europe attacking venezuela and blaming their failures on state socialism is like blaming democracy for ukraine's los…

China is not a socialist country.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#77

Post by imminentviolet »

kenjackson wrote: post #73
thethirdone wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"). Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. In many places, he does not respond to the probing questions asked of him at all (this is assuming the poster didn't add them in afterwards) instead opting to insult…

Chomsky had stated earlier that there are experts to read who cover such things. The kid kept asking variations of the same question. If I were Chomsky I would have been done after a couple of responses.

Why not sketch out the picture in a little more detail than he did (he wasted entire paragraphs on veiled insults anyway) and refer the kid to a better source?

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#78

Post by RobertoG »

galacticpony2 wrote: post #70
RobertoG wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just in socialist countries that the critics get silenced or killed, or that they are incompetent or get corrupted, but, normally, there are a more "laissez faire" attitude to those countries from the press and the political class, as Chomsky have pointed repetitively. If you care about the welfare of people is fair to ask why a minority live like kings when the vast majority live in misery in a resource ric…

Socialism has failed 100% of the time. You can't get worse than that. Even if capitalist systems failed to improve the lives of the poor 95% of the time, it would still have a better track record. In reality, the most successful countries are all capitalist and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty than anything else. The fact that some autocratic countries also employ capitalism doesn't change that. Ca…

It seems to me that you define socialism as whatever it fails and capitalism as whatever it works.

Pure capitalism has never existed neither, so we have a spectrum of possibilities. I would argue that the better system is the one that improve the lives or the people and, that should be the measure.

Even if capitalism was the definitive answer, that doesn't mean that we should stop criticizing it.

If you have a system where, in the middle of the most advanced age of humanity, most of the people have not even the most basic needs covered, like was (and it's) the case of Venezuela, some criticism is needed.

I'm not going to argue that socialism is a good system, I agree with you that we have not good examples, but that doesn't automatically, leave us with a system where all resources have to be allocated by the market. In fact, if something has been proved for now, is that is a very bad idea.

So, when you criticism socialism, remember that a lot of countries in the world redistribute resources in a not market way very successfully. Call that whatever you want.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#79

Post by Frogolocalypse »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #5

Chomsky is a great critic of social issues like imperialism, manufactured consent, and state capitalism. However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this.

An argument about socialism requires all parties to understand the actual definition of socialism. That is further than most peoples understanding of government.

Re: Noam Chomsky Joins Faculty at University of Arizona

#80

Post by imminentviolet »

jtraffic wrote: post #62

I suspect that when Chomsky dies, a burst of new and valuable linguistics research will arrive. I'm not saying I hope he dies soon. However, I think his current impact on the field is probably negative. My theory derives from these sources: https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21695371-theor... (Chomsky's recent theory of how language evolved has not been accepted favorably), and http://www.nber.org/papers/w…

There are some good counter points at http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.ca/?m=1 it is an interesting discussion and not as damning as the Economist article wants to imply.
Post reply on HN