What does Noam Chomsky think about Ron Paul?

[swatmc]

Seriously. Any guesses?

 

[ARealConservative]

He would hate him.

Chomsky is a collectivist and an America Hater.

 

[furface]

>>>He would hate him.<<<

I'm not sure you can say that. I would tend to think the opposite. However, Noam and I are two different people, so I can't say.

 

[cujothekitten]

I would guess he agrees with a few things but Chomsky is an anarcho-socialist so he probably disagrees with a totally free market.

 

[coplinger]

I would think that he would be right in line with him on foreign policy, but on economic policy, they would have much disagreement.

 

[swatmc]

What do you think Chomsky's reaction would be about the mini debate with Ron Paul and Giuliani last night?

 

[abouthadit]

Got to be polar opposites. Chomsky is a blame America first kind of guy, whereas Paul is a "blame the anti-federalists, empire building, fiat printing, debt building, war mongers" kind of guy.

 

[ARealConservative]

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist.

Libertarian socialism includes a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies - a society in which individuals co-operate freely as equals. This would be achieved through the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes.


They are polar opposites.

 

[furface]

>>>This would be achieved through the abolition of private property<<<

Has Chomksky ever said he was for the abolition of private property? I'm not sure you can say that about him, but I could be wrong. Private property is a basic human right. I think there's not doubt about that at this point.

 

[zMtLlC]

I think Chomsky would certainly like Dr. Paul's tirade last night on US foreign policy, no question.

 

[ARealConservative]

>>>This would be achieved through the abolition of private property<<<

Has Chomksky ever said he was for the abolition of private property? I'm not sure you can say that about him, but I could be wrong. Private property is a basic human right. I think there's not doubt about that at this point.

His book entitled "Government in the future" deals with the concept.

 

[Gee]

They aren't polar opposites. Libertarian socialists argue that capitalism (and its in-equality of classes) cannot survive without coersion. "Normal" libertarians argue the free market will arise in the absense of coersion. Both want to get rid of coersion, the arguement is over what coersion is, and how to get rid of it, IMO.

 

[NMCB3]

I don't know mush about Chomsky, but anything with socialist in it cant by definition be good for individual freedom. Ditto for "libertarian socialists"

 

[Horace]

They disagree over basic human nature. Mainstream libertarians follow the bouncing ball of Mises economics and Murray Rothbard's polemical presentation of the free market leading directly to democracy. Chomsky -- when he's being coherent at all -- follows traditional socialist doctrine and believes in organizing powerless segments of the population (women, minorities, the poor) to defeat the natural tendency of powerful interests to, effectively, enslave them through superior ability and force.

Paul wants us out of NAFTA because it's governmental. Chomsky wants us out of NAFTA because it's capitalistic. They would be a seriously strange pair of bedfellows.

 

[Brandybuck]

Anarcho-capitalists say one thing, anarcho-socialists say another. But until we get a true modern anarchist society, no one knows for sure what it would be like. I would bet the result would be closer to the anarcho-capitalist's vision, however.

But beyond that, I have one huge beef with anarcho-socialists: they want to get rid of all hierarchies, not just government. Including voluntary and non-coercive hierarchies. They would get rid of churches by force. They would get rid of employers by force. They would get rid of all inequalities by force. They are in essence anti-anarchists, mobocrats. They would replace the state's hierarchical monopoly on coercion with the decentralized distributed coercion of a mobocracy. But the coercion would remain. It would be Lord of the Flies writ large.

 

[NMCB3]

Anarcho-capitalists say one thing, anarcho-socialists say another. But until we get a true modern anarchist society, no one knows for sure what it would be like. I would bet the result would be closer to the anarcho-capitalist's vision, however.

But beyond that, I have one huge beef with anarcho-socialists: they want to get rid of all hierarchies, not just government. Including voluntary and non-coercive hierarchies. They would get rid of churches by force. They would get rid of employers by force. They would get rid of all inequalities by force. They are in essence anti-anarchists, mobocrats. They would replace the state's hierarchical monopoly on coercion with the decentralized distributed coercion of a mobocracy. But the coercion would remain. It would be Lord of the Flies writ large.

Thats what I`m saying, sounds bad for liberty. All it would take is one guy like me who wanted to be free to make my own choices, then what would they do. What about 100, 1000 ?

 

[Stan Hunter]

Chomsky does in fact believe in free markets, but he thinks the state needs to be expanded to meet this end, rather than eliminated or reduced.

In a free market society, people can create a socialist farm, town, or society, if they choose, from the ground up, as opposed to the top down (as a democratic or neo-con president would like to do). That is because it is their choice, as opposed to being forced upon them.
Those who do not choose to participate do not have to. People can make socialist factories and businesses if they want, but they'll have to compete with a traditional factory or business of voluntary heirarchy led by someone who is experienced in leading a business.

In a free society, people are free to do and live as they like.

If that means making a commune, than who are we to say they can't?
A true commune can only exist -and sustain itself- in a free society to begin with. So to criticize the free market, for a socialist or communist, is detrimental. I don't think Chomsky criticizes free markets, so much as what is currently called "the free market" that we see now.

I have hang ups with the abolition of private property, that's a dangerous thing to come from a government. If Chomsky does his homework, as a scholar should, he'll probably consider Ron Paul the way to go tactically speaking, but I'm not Noam so who knows.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What do you think Chomsky's reaction would be about the mini debate with Ron Paul and Giuliani last night?

What debate? What did I miss?

 

[kylejack]

I would guess he agrees with a few things but Chomsky is an anarcho-socialist so he probably disagrees with a totally free market.

I've thought about this a little. Aren't ancaps and an-socialists essentially the same thing? The only difference seems to be what they think will happen if the State is eliminated.

 

[beermotor]

There's a huge difference, I think. I think the natural condition is capitalism. I think socialists disagree. they're wrong.