What does Noam Chomsky think about Ron Paul?

[jenius]

Marx did not "want" Communism; he simply believed it was the inevitable evolution of a society that begins as a feudal state, then becomes a Capitalist state, and eventually a Communist state.

Marx himself famously said, "I am not a Marxist," and for good reason: primarily in that people kept trying to label him as a Marxist, based on what their limited notion of what "Marxism" is all about. And secondly, because his ideas were constantly evolving throughout his lifetime - at few points did he ever state his positions as static. Communism is merely a form of socialism that a number of countries in the last hundred years have attempted to install through forced revolution (as opposed to the revolution Marx claimed would eventually occur at the end of a Capitalist state).

Communism, as most of us know it, has very little to do with Karl Marx.

 

[couvi]

Question to Chomsky:

"Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of "Libertarianism"?"

Chomsky's reply:

"That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously."

The statement "it would be impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances" says everything. Essentially his ideas--his "abstract" preference--are utopic and unachievable in an unbrainwashed society.

Thankfully, Ron Paul deals in reality.

 

[Conza88]

Well I've been a fan of his for awhile, definitely about the Foreign Policy aspects which is predominately what I have read from his material. It's all I thought he was about, so all this socialist concerns go way over my head here. Don't know how you could call him un-American... simply because of dissent and calling out the administration for its shortcomings over the years. He rips into other countries aswell, its not all focused on the world super power, but it often is because of that simple reason.

I was also interested in this; thank you for the link - http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&blogID=326180908
was good read. Glad someone bothered to write him a letter. I have before and got a good reply, was going to do so again if no one had yet.

So by his answer in that blog, he would not support Ron Paul... doesn't say he would support Hillary supposably.. by default.

I think he's just scared he'll lose a whole massive section of commentary about Fpolicy once Ron gets into power. Alternatively, I continue to find it hard to peg myself down with any label.. I would listen to chomsky and agree totally.. then I listen to Ron Paul & http://youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A (Milton Friedman - Greed) and then I totally agree with him... lol *sigh* RP ftw though, that never changes.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why are Noam Chomsky books...good? What is so good about them? Are there any online? So many people keep telling me this

 

[nexalacer]

Why are Noam Chomsky books...good? What is so good about them? Are there any online? So many people keep telling me this

You can find his books on torrent sites pretty easily, as he's really popular on the internets. As far as what's good about his books, he is the best critic of foreign policy and propaganda today. Like I said, his domestic policy analysis is way off-base, but he can't be beat as far as foreign policy and propaganda critiques.

Manufacturing Consent, Failed States, and Rogue States are my three favorite.

 

[ACJohn]

Agree or Disagree love them or hate them, But Oh to have discussions like this again:
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1

 

[Highmesa]

"Libertarian socialist" sound like an oxymoron to me.

Like having the freedom to repeatedly punch yourself in the nuts.

 

[ACJohn]

one more Buckley's position on drugs, I remember watching this and it had an influence on me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI

 

[Enzo]

Why are Noam Chomsky books...good? What is so good about them? Are there any online? So many people keep telling me this

Chomsky's books are so "good" because the man is so thorough and exhaustive in his explanation, historical background, research and references. Many find this to be "boring" but facts do matter.

Specifically with regard to the Middle East, he's been one of the few people that has consistently laid out exaclty what is happening, how it happened, who is responsible for it, and who is enabling it to continue.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Ron Paul gets a great deal of his information on US foreign policy from Noam Chomsky's books.

 

[J4ck]

I have lots of respect for Chomsky but he wouldn't support the good doctor. He doesn't believe in private property, is a fan of welfarism and he is against a strengthening of the states. (he fears that the price level for corrupt influental politicians will rapidly go down)

 

[dspectre]

Marx did not "want" Communism; he simply believed it was the inevitable evolution of a society that begins as a feudal state, then becomes a Capitalist state, and eventually a Communist state.

Marx himself famously said, "I am not a Marxist," and for good reason: primarily in that people kept trying to label him as a Marxist, based on what their limited notion of what "Marxism" is all about. And secondly, because his ideas were constantly evolving throughout his lifetime - at few points did he ever state his positions as static. Communism is merely a form of socialism that a number of countries in the last hundred years have attempted to install through forced revolution (as opposed to the revolution Marx claimed would eventually occur at the end of a Capitalist state).

Communism, as most of us know it, has very little to do with Karl Marx.

Sure he didn't want it. He preferred the current conditions of his time. Give me a break.

His arguments of the inevitability of communism didn't derive from evolution of society. It comes from the idea of Historical Materialism, that is the whole conflict of the social classes.

Marx called for the violent over throw of the middle class. This was the necessary great change to install a Communistic society. Marx saw socialism in his time as a compromised form of communism. It had similar ideas, but without the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the true communistic society could not be achieved(since socialism compromised itself to the middle class). How can one believe that someone who states that a "violent overthrow of the ruling class is a necessity" does not have a desire or want for change? If it was just a social evolution, it could happen with or without violent revolution.

Communism changed over the years, but its core ideas and goals remained the same.

 

[LBT]

Chomsky would support Ron Paul's positions on a lot of things. He is quite good in some areas of analysis, but he has no idea of economics.

One thing for sure, is that in a Chomsky world, we would not be free to do as we please with what is our own. He would not leave us alone, unless we followed his directive (slavery).

Ron Paul's ideology is to leave people alone as much as possible, except when they interfere with other people or their property.

 

[chrismatthews]

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.

Not even close man.

ok.

classic libertarianism or minarchism is what Ron Paul alludes to when he says, ideally i would do this but as president i'll aim for this instead(for example a competing currency to fiat money vs the abolition of fiat money.)

That's the sect of the libertarian party that Paul subscribes to.

The central tenet being that government has a monopoly on force, and exists to defend its peoples individual rights, which include protecting you from aggression, both foreign and domestic, enforcing property rights, and enforcing contract law and tort.

Property rights is the platform the rest of the ethos derives from, if someone assaults you, that's an invasion of your property(because in libertarianism, you own yourself and the fruit of your labor) for example.

Anarcho-capitalism takes it one step further.

Government does NOT have a monopoly on the use of force, in fact, there is no government.(because, at it's essence a government is the only agent that can employ force legally) Private companies provide services for contract arbitration, Private companies provide for a "national" defense. Laws are enforced by private security companies, etc...


The libertarian ethos is divided into these two general camps.


You have a third camp, which used to be much more prevalent than it is today.(it peaked in the late 1800's). This camp believes that property is theft. The most famous example is Proudhon if you want to look into the philosophy. Chomsky is from this camp.

Without property, you can not have capitalism, and as a result(in my opinion), they deem capitalism as antithetical to freedom.

One can not own anything, period, you only "possess" things, until you put them down, at which point they are public goods again, whether this be land, or the clothes on your back.


They use the labor theory of goods to establish a barter system for exchange. In essence, it's marxism, except marxism is a graduated evolution/devolution through the state, while libertarian socialism is strictly implemented by a coerced revolution or strictly utopian.

The capitalist based ideologies have a canon of economic theory and developmental science.

The socialist based ideology is vacuous in this regard.


So Ron Paul is classic libertarian, meaning, the government should be kept small enough you can drown it in your bathtub.

Murray Rothbard is anarcho-cap, meaning, no agency or person has a monopoly on force.

Chomsky is a utopian marxist, property is theft, one can not own, only possess.

 

[LBT]

Sure he didn't want it. He preferred the current conditions of his time. Give me a break.

His arguments of the inevitability of communism didn't derive from evolution of society. It comes from the idea of Historical Materialism, that is the whole conflict of the social classes.

Marx called for the violent over throw of the middle class. This was the necessary great change to install a Communistic society. Marx saw socialism in his time as a compromised form of communism. It had similar ideas, but without the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the true communistic society could not be achieved(since socialism compromised itself to the middle class). How can one believe that someone who states that a "violent overthrow of the ruling class is a necessity" does not have a desire or want for change? If it was just a social evolution, it could happen with or without violent revolution.

Communism changed over the years, but its core ideas and goals remained the same.

Marx was hesitant to put forth policy goals on how to establish communism because when he tried to in earlier writings the economists would shatter his ideas and prove them ridiculous.

He even developed the concept of polylogism (different truths for different classes) to avoid the arguments of economists. Hence he dismiss their arguments as untrue simply because they represented the capitalist class. He was a piece of work.

At least that's what I've garnered from some studies.

 

[LBT]

Not even close man.

ok.

classic libertarianism or minarchism is what Ron Paul alludes to when he says, ideally i would do this but as president i'll aim for this instead(for example a competing currency to fiat money vs the abolition of fiat money.)

That's the sect of the libertarian party that Paul subscribes to.

The central tenet being that government has a monopoly on force, and exists to defend its peoples individual rights, which include protecting you from aggression, both foreign and domestic, enforcing property rights, and enforcing contract law and tort.

Property rights is the platform the rest of the ethos derives from, if someone assaults you, that's an invasion of your property(because in libertarianism, you own yourself and the fruit of your labor) for example.

Anarcho-capitalism takes it one step further.

Government does NOT have a monopoly on the use of force, in fact, there is no government.(because, at it's essence a government is the only agent that can employ force legally) Private companies provide services for contract arbitration, Private companies provide for a "national" defense. Laws are enforced by private security companies, etc...


The libertarian ethos is divided into these two general camps.


You have a third camp, which used to be much more prevalent than it is today.(it peaked in the late 1800's). This camp believes that property is theft. The most famous example is Proudhon if you want to look into the philosophy. Chomsky is from this camp.

Without property, you can not have capitalism, and as a result(in my opinion), they deem capitalism as antithetical to freedom.

One can not own anything, period, you only "possess" things, until you put them down, at which point they are public goods again, whether this be land, or the clothes on your back.


They use the labor theory of goods to establish a barter system for exchange. In essence, it's marxism, except marxism is a graduated evolution/devolution through the state, while libertarian socialism is strictly implemented by a coerced revolution or strictly utopian.

The capitalist based ideologies have a canon of economic theory and developmental science.

The socialist based ideology is vacuous in this regard.


So Ron Paul is classic libertarian, meaning, the government should be kept small enough you can drown it in your bathtub.

Murray Rothbard is anarcho-cap, meaning, no agency or person has a monopoly on force.

Chomsky is a utopian marxist, property is theft, one can not own, only possess.

Great analysis!

May I add, that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, I expect he would be jumping up and down with excitement at the growing success of the Ron Paul campaign, and the fact that it is spreading ideas about liberty.

As for Chomsky, I'm not sure if he sees Ron Paul as a net positive or negative.

 

[chrismatthews]

Great analysis!

May I add, that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, I expect he would be jumping up and down with excitement at the growing success of the Ron Paul campaign, and the fact that it is spreading ideas about liberty.

As for Chomsky, I'm not sure if he sees Ron Paul as a net positive or negative.

Rothbard is my personal rockstar.

I think of him as von Mises with the benefit of having been able to read von Mises before you develop your own theories.

I do stray from straight Rothbardian philosophy though. I can't logically make the step to no monopoly on force.

Rothbards motivation was that all monopolies spring from government(which is obvious), but more specifically, they spring from a monopoly on force.

I'm not certain if i'll someday make that connection and fully understand his philosophy or if ill expand and improve that philosophy someday, as he did von Mises'

Thanks for the compliment. I wish he were still alive, can you imagine Rothbard as Secretary of Treasury?

 

[Joby]

It would be extremely interesting to find out, or if Paul and Chomsky did an interview together.

I'v read a lot, a lot, of Chomsky's work, and he is intelectually stimulating, I'll give him that. If he and Dr. Paul debated, it would be an instant classic. A discussion for the ages, not the "I'll eat the testicles of terrorists vs. I'd find Jack Baeur vs. I'd just nuke 'em all vs. Y'all are frickin crazy!" debates that we have now.

 

[Joby]

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

What tirade?

 

[d'anconia]

What tirade?

Look at the date of the post. Back in May after the Fox debate.

Anyway Chomsky is a joke. He's also a global warming alarmist. Basically his answer to everything is "force everyone to be nice" LOL what a joke. No wonder he's become a public intellectual, he advocates more and more government and of course governments in general love to hear that so they push for his prestige.

 

[chrismatthews]

Look at the date of the post. Back in May after the Fox debate.

Anyway Chomsky is a joke. He's also a global warming alarmist. Basically his answer to everything is "force everyone to be nice" LOL what a joke. No wonder he's become a public intellectual, he advocates more and more government and of course governments in general love to hear that so they push for his prestige.

He's antithetical to what I believe but he is brilliant in his own right. I'd rather commit murder than live under his ideal society but that doesn't make him stupid.

A lot of the rhetoric he uses is aimed at shaping the people that follow him closely's opinion rather than being based on his actual philosophy.

So anything he can beat the state on, whether it's in line with his actual belief is fodder. He thinks of himself as more a prophet than a polemist.