Who is Noam Chomsky?

[Votto]

MSN

He is a Left-wing moralist and political commentator. As the article states, "More than any other thinker in the postwar era, Chomsky has embodied Karl Marx’s favorite dictum: “nothing human is alien to me.” Noam hasn’t just pointed to injustice where he saw it, no matter how remote — he has felt it."

He seems to have generated a large group of Left-wing followers who have embraced a secular morality without the need to base such a morality on anything other than just what seems right to them with Karl Marx leading the way. Of course, the premise of any on the left is to describe what is so horribly wrong with Capitalism.

To do this, he enjoys quoting Adam Smith a great deal. 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.

But in a world of socialism, communism, and Progressivism, how is it that Capitalism continues to be the source of all our ills?

He targets the media and academia of all institutions as being one of the primary reasons.

The Ruling Ideas​

And this is what has elicited Chomsky’s withering contempt for people employed as intellectuals. He understands that academics, journalists, and media figures had the time and the resources to acquire fuller and more accurate presentations of political events than the typical citizen. They were in positions of great privilege. And with this, he argues, should come a moral responsibility. “If you’re more privileged,” he once explained, “you’re more responsible. . . . The people who are sitting in places like MIT have choices. They have privilege, they have education, they have training. That carries responsibility. Somebody who is working fifty hours a week to put food on the table and comes back exhausted at night and turns on the tube has many fewer choices.” It wasn’t that the person working fifty hours was an automaton: “Technically, this person has choices,” Chomsky observed, “but they’re much harder to exercise, and therefore he has less responsibility. That’s just elementary.” When professors, journalists, and others like them participated in elite deceptions, they were making a choice — it came from their prioritization of professional success over a baseline decency. And this brought on his scorn.

The assumption is, the ruling class is wrong in basking in privileged while ignoring social injustice. In fact, what is social justice, especially when the ruling class now shows an open disdain for Capitalism as they demand to redistribute wealth for their proclaimed social justice? In fact, how could a ruling class ever have perfect social justice since their own power skews their ability to dish it out?

So, how many Left wingers here are familiar with him?

 

[sparky]

So, how many Left wingers here are familiar with him?

I've read a lot of Noam in the past.....

and Smith was a pre-globalist sheepherder who's economic ideals were prostituted by said ruling class when they were handed economic reins on this rock........~S~

 

[rampart]

MSN

He is a Left-wing moralist and political commentator. As the article states, "More than any other thinker in the postwar era, Chomsky has embodied Karl Marx’s favorite dictum: “nothing human is alien to me.” Noam hasn’t just pointed to injustice where he saw it, no matter how remote — he has felt it."

He seems to have generated a large group of Left-wing followers who have embraced a secular morality without the need to base such a morality on anything other than just what seems right to them with Karl Marx leading the way. Of course, the premise of any on the left is to describe what is so horribly wrong with Capitalism.

To do this, he enjoys quoting Adam Smith a great deal. 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.

But in a world of socialism, communism, and Progressivism, how is it that Capitalism continues to be the source of all our ills?

He targets the media and academia of all institutions as being one of the primary reasons.

The Ruling Ideas​

And this is what has elicited Chomsky’s withering contempt for people employed as intellectuals. He understands that academics, journalists, and media figures had the time and the resources to acquire fuller and more accurate presentations of political events than the typical citizen. They were in positions of great privilege. And with this, he argues, should come a moral responsibility. “If you’re more privileged,” he once explained, “you’re more responsible. . . . The people who are sitting in places like MIT have choices. They have privilege, they have education, they have training. That carries responsibility. Somebody who is working fifty hours a week to put food on the table and comes back exhausted at night and turns on the tube has many fewer choices.” It wasn’t that the person working fifty hours was an automaton: “Technically, this person has choices,” Chomsky observed, “but they’re much harder to exercise, and therefore he has less responsibility. That’s just elementary.” When professors, journalists, and others like them participated in elite deceptions, they were making a choice — it came from their prioritization of professional success over a baseline decency. And this brought on his scorn.

The assumption is, the ruling class is wrong in basking in privileged while ignoring social injustice. In fact, what is social justice, especially when the ruling class now shows an open disdain for Capitalism as they demand to redistribute wealth for their proclaimed social justice? In fact, how could a ruling class ever have perfect social justice since their own power skews their ability to dish it out?

So, how many Left wingers here are familiar with him?

foremost linguist, author, philosopher, activist for peace and justice. if you;re saying he is a commie or something i believe he describes an "anarchal syndicalist" sufficiently that only fellow ideologues could understand

i like chomsky. sometimes, late on a dark and stormy night , he may appear as a panelist on c span 3.

 

[Votto]

foremost linguist, author, philosopher, activist for peace and justice. if you;re saying he is a commie or something i believe he describes an "anarchal syndicalist" sufficiently that only fellow ideologues could understand

i like chomsky. sometimes, late on a dark and stormy night , he may appear as a panelist on c span 3.

I am fascinated with the concept of morality, as is Noam. After all, morality is why there are laws. I grew up hearing, "You cannot legislate morality" as the right tried to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but then it hit me, all laws have a moral basis. What they were really saying was, you cannot legislate the morality of those on the right because their morality is based upon religion as the secular Left passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws every year. So, it begs the question, what is the morality of the other group based upon?

Both religion and politics deal with the same question, how does one deal with both allowing freedom and allowing that freedom to infringe upon others? Having God in the mix only solidifies the moral basis for those who are religious, as where those who are not have no moral basis. This is why the Founding Fathers proclaimed that we all have innate rights granted to us by God, thus then can never be taken away.

Conversely, those on the Left disagree.

This is why we get people like this.



The reporter had no idea what the Founding Fathers had to say about rights coming from God.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever..."
Thomas Jefferson

So, according to CNN and the Left, the nation was built by white Christian nationalist MAGA types.

 

[berg80]

foremost linguist, author, philosopher, activist for peace and justice. if you;re saying he is a commie or something i believe he describes an "anarchal syndicalist" sufficiently that only fellow ideologues could understand

i like chomsky. sometimes, late on a dark and stormy night , he may appear as a panelist on c span 3.

I've read quite a lot of what he has written. I like his "out of the box" viewpoint on the media. I can see why the Right wants to attack his credibility since he says things that cut so close to the bone. Like.........."The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens the more you control all the people." Hmmmmmmm, who is doing that?

 

[berg80]

I am fascinated with the concept of morality, as is Noam. After all, morality is why there are laws. I grew up hearing, "You cannot legislate morality" as the right tried to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but then it hit me, all laws have a moral basis. What they were really saying was, you cannot legislate the morality of those on the right because their morality is based upon religion as the secular Left passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws every year. So, it begs the question, what is the morality of the other group based upon?

Both religion and politics deal with the same question, how does one deal with both allowing freedom and allowing that freedom to infringe upon others? Having God in the mix only solidifies the moral basis for those who are religious, as where those who are not have no moral basis. This is why the Founding Fathers proclaimed that we all have innate rights granted to us by God, thus then can never be taken away.

Conversely, those on the Left disagree.

This is why we get people like this.



The reporter had no idea what the Founding Fathers had to say about rights coming from God.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever..."
Thomas Jefferson

So, according to CNN and the Left, the nation was built by white Christian nationalist MAGA types.

Fuck off.

The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country. In fact, it was likely their own “faith” that led them to this conclusion. Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance.

The Founding Fathers’ Religious Wisdom

This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[Unkotare]

He's a discredited linguist who has been reduced to being a far-far-left political attention whore.

 

[Votto]

He's a discredited linguist who has been reduced to being a far-far-left political attention whore.

Why discount everthing he says? Everyone is right at times, and wrong at times.

He seems to have irritated both the right and left, which indicates he was probably on to more truth than not.

In fact, here is a little paper that delves into the topic at hand on this thread. It is about seeking what we are all after, which is redemption.

Redemption for the masses​

Since the dawn of time, man has struggled to find redemption from the pain and suffering and death in this present world, and through this struggle, various philosophies have arisen to try and find this redemption. There are religious philosophies that place God at the center of our redemption, and there are secular human philosophies that reject God entirely. Two of the most famous and influential secular philosophies come from two men, Karl Marx and Frederick Nietzsche, both of which created their own gospels of redemption.



Marx is by far the most famous and influential secular philosopher. Julius Carlebach, a Jewish academic who escaped the Holocaust, wrote extensively on the relationship between Karl Marx and antisemitism. He write, “Marx envisions a society that needs to be transformed from a stratified society to an egalitarian one.” The method of redemption is not a spiritual transformation. Instead, it is a transformation through materialism. The redemption of Marx can only be realized if the proletariat, or workers, provoke revolution to restructure society in the name of equality and justice. “Marx is nothing short of a secular nineteenth-century version of an Old Testament Prophet. For you see, Marx’s passionate devotion to the proletariat is a displacement of the chosen people, Communism is nothing more than a reconstruction of Judaism with Marx’s theories, the equality of men is a matter of right and not grace. justice is a matter of principle and not convenience, reason is based on learning and merely a virtue and a duty, and this-worldliness demands the search for perfection on earth.” In short, the masses became their own deity, and in the glow of their redemption, they are enlightened and ennobled by their own divine purpose. In fact, Marx does not object to the ideals of religion as much as to the manipulations in the hands of the privilege classes, much like Christ standing up to the religious leaders and privileged classes of his day, and later crucified for it. But unlike Christ, Marx completely rejects the need for a God to find redemption from these oppressors. Instead, redemption will be achieved with world-wide socialism where everyone’s equal, but primarily equal through material equality which will bring about societal happiness and utopia. Marx’s redemption must be universal and not merely redemption on an individual basis. Either society as a whole is redeemed, or it is damned to an everlasting hell on earth, thus it must also be world-wide. This is unlike Nietzsche who preached that redemption can be found on an individual basis, and is not held hostage by the meandering universal masses.



Like Marx, Nietzsche sought to restore humans to their true divinity. This is because Nietzsche concluded that there are those who aren’t worthy of his enlightened message, as well as those unable to cognitively even grasp it. “Some human beings, Nietzsche holds, are nobler than others and should serve as models for humanity, and it is these free spirits who are able to overcome themselves and rise above the all-too-human process”, writes Carlebach. In other words, redemption comes from a small group of spiritual elites, with Nietzsche, of course, leading the charge.



The philosophies of both Marx and Nietzsche were influential due to the fact that they helped form the basis of world governments. Two of the most famous world governments heavily influenced by them were the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Marx influenced both Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin as they preached redemption through the Soviet revolution of 1917. Conversely, Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime were heavily influenced by Nietzsche. This can be seen as Hitler and his elites did not come to be by revolution, but through the appointment of Hitler and the democratic votes that later elected other Nazis. They then stood out to the populace as the ideal model to be emulated. Luckily, the Nazi regime was later vanquished after World War 2 due to the evils it inflicted on the entire world, however, the Soviet regime remained and seemed to grow with more world-wide appeal.



It is understandable why the Nietzsche influenced Nazi model of government fell out of favor. It was both evil and corrupt and lost a major world war. But why did the Marx counterpart seem to flourish after the war? Was it any less evil and corrupt? No, if you consider that Stalin murdered hundreds of millions more human beings than Hitler, and the fact that Marxism that later spread across the world in places like China and Cambodia oppressed and murdered hundreds of millions more people. IN fact, today those labeled a Nazi are automatically viewed world-wide as a villain, however, those who call themselves Marxists seem to be revered the world over as on the cutting edge of enlightenment and social justice. Black Lives Matter is one such organization that self identifies as Marxists. Despite this, corporations around the world sung their praise and poured millions of dollars into their organization. However, do they know that Marx himself was an ardent racist against Blacks? IN a letter Marx wrote to his friend Friedrich Engels in 1866, Marx writes that his black acquaintance Tremaux “proved that the common Negro type is the degenerate form of a much higher one”. So are the Marxists of today willing to ignore the pain and misery their ideology has inflicted upon mankind that is steeped in systemic racism so they can try and attain his long term goal in mind of universal secular redemption, or are they simply unaware of it? It is hard to say. But the question must be asked, can redemption really be found in an ideology of Marxism that has already taken humanity to the lowest depths of hell itself?

 

[westwall]

MSN

He is a Left-wing moralist and political commentator. As the article states, "More than any other thinker in the postwar era, Chomsky has embodied Karl Marx’s favorite dictum: “nothing human is alien to me.” Noam hasn’t just pointed to injustice where he saw it, no matter how remote — he has felt it."

He seems to have generated a large group of Left-wing followers who have embraced a secular morality without the need to base such a morality on anything other than just what seems right to them with Karl Marx leading the way. Of course, the premise of any on the left is to describe what is so horribly wrong with Capitalism.

To do this, he enjoys quoting Adam Smith a great deal. 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.

But in a world of socialism, communism, and Progressivism, how is it that Capitalism continues to be the source of all our ills?

He targets the media and academia of all institutions as being one of the primary reasons.

The Ruling Ideas​

And this is what has elicited Chomsky’s withering contempt for people employed as intellectuals. He understands that academics, journalists, and media figures had the time and the resources to acquire fuller and more accurate presentations of political events than the typical citizen. They were in positions of great privilege. And with this, he argues, should come a moral responsibility. “If you’re more privileged,” he once explained, “you’re more responsible. . . . The people who are sitting in places like MIT have choices. They have privilege, they have education, they have training. That carries responsibility. Somebody who is working fifty hours a week to put food on the table and comes back exhausted at night and turns on the tube has many fewer choices.” It wasn’t that the person working fifty hours was an automaton: “Technically, this person has choices,” Chomsky observed, “but they’re much harder to exercise, and therefore he has less responsibility. That’s just elementary.” When professors, journalists, and others like them participated in elite deceptions, they were making a choice — it came from their prioritization of professional success over a baseline decency. And this brought on his scorn.

The assumption is, the ruling class is wrong in basking in privileged while ignoring social injustice. In fact, what is social justice, especially when the ruling class now shows an open disdain for Capitalism as they demand to redistribute wealth for their proclaimed social justice? In fact, how could a ruling class ever have perfect social justice since their own power skews their ability to dish it out?

So, how many Left wingers here are familiar with him?

I would say all of them

 

[sartre play]

I Attempt to read some or all of the well known names from the past and the present.
Try to learn from them, Do not need to agree, Just learn from them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

A complete leftist hack

 

[berg80]

A complete leftist hack

“Don't criticize what you can't understand.”​

― Bob Dylan

 

[SassyIrishLass]

“Don't criticize what you can't understand.”​

― Bob Dylan

It figures your dumbass is a Chomsky deciple. That explains volumes

 

[westwall]

“Don't criticize what you can't understand.”​

― Bob Dylan

Noam was an apologist for the Cambodian leftist purge. That immediately removes him from being a credible source for anything.