Noam Chomsky on the war in Ukraine

I am no intellectual match for Noam Chomsky, so I will humbly listen and agree to what he says. That doesn't mean I approve the war in Ukraine though.

Thoughts?

 

So it's not that Putin is simply mad? But everyone says he has a brain tumor and is crazy?????? My head hurts.

Honestly, though I have never liked Chomsky, he is correct, just like Mearsheimer. The US created this. They didn't believe Russia would actually act. The only solution for the US is to encourage an agreement and start building a better relationship with Russia. Otherwise we are toast.

 

Did he suggest Germany rearm at the end of the clip? Uh oh...

 

We could actually commit ourselves to defeating the Russians. And before you bring up nuclear weapons we should build and deploy several thousand ABMs

 

So what if we could. Should we drive them into China's arms over Ukraine? Most people can't find Ukraine on a map.

 

Chomsky is a moronsky. I can't believe folks give an ounce of crap of what he says.

 

Sure, trying to appease a dictator has always worked.

 

So what should the US do? Full on confrontation? The Polish corridor wasn't worth it in 1939 and Ukraine joining NATO isn't worth it now.

 

Who cares? And no, we should take on and destroy Russia and China (hence the ABMs)

 

In your opinion what exactly WOULD be worth it?

 

I had a series of emails with Chomsky when I was at university. I was also on the left then, and am now on the right, but I still have a soft spot for him. No longer agree with much he says but I value his perspective on things.

There is a whole lot of hypocrisy going around at the moment.

 

So just sitting around waiting for a world War is the solution?

 

Showing off more of your patriotism by blaming the US for Putin's actions. !!!

Maybe you can find some people kneeling to complain about.

 

No. Telling Ukraine as a non NATO nation that borders Russia they are out of luck. Putin knows he can't move on NATO countries and is fine with that. If he did that then we would have a big problem.

 

Waiting? How? You think Putin will move on NATO? No.

 

Chomsky the commie. Obama’s mentor. What style communism does he prefer?

 

That old fool is 93 years old. To me his thoughts are from 2 of the few working synapsis left in his brain accidently rubbing together. Hopefully soon, he will do the world a favor and join Soros on that long hot escalator ride to hades where they belong.

 

If he did you’d still be here telling us nobody can find estonia on a map and it’s not worth a world war.

 

The US and NATO could do this:

1. Send large numbers of longer ranged anti-tank weapons.
2. Send more effective anti-air systems.
3. Allow Ukrainian pilots to fly fully armed MiGs out of Poland/Germany into Ukraine.

 

That radical, soulless old whore shat upon any credibility he ever had long ago.

 

Syndicalism of the Rudolf Rocker sort, I believe.

Note that communism is completely hypothetical and has never been achieved. It is not a policy platform. Socialism is supposedly the means to communism, but has never produced such a result - a classless society according to their definition of classless.

 

Noam Chomsky is a primarily a LINGUIST, though has also contributed to the fields of psychology & philosophy. Just because someone is generally "smart," doesn't mean that their opinions on every topic under the sun, are "smart opinions"-- or even correct ones. Like anyone else, Chomsky sees the world through his own assumptions, which color his analytic results. But let us take a case in point, as an example.

You say that it is worth deferring to Chomsky's judgement, in this matter, but that is only because, I would wager, it is in general accord with your own, already determined view (this video was made prior to the invasion). If that is your belief, or your argument, that Chomsky is too intelligent to not "agree to what he says," then how do you feel about his political philosophy:


[Snip]
Noam Chomsky, an anarcho-syndicalist, orients his politics around maximizing communal decision-making and cooperative activity for all. Chomsky views the accurate provision of information to the public as necessary for societal engagement, and he is deeply critical of intellectuals and journalists who conceal information in order to protect cultural and economic elites...

Discussion enriched and confirmed the beliefs that would underlie his political views throughout his life: that all people are capable of comprehending political and economic issues and making their own decisions on that basis; that all people need and derive satisfaction from acting freely and creatively and from associating with others; and that authority—whether political, economic, or religious—that cannot meet a strong test of rational justification is illegitimate.
[End]

So, would you defer to Chomsky's concept of
1) all political decisions being made through Communal decision-making (and cooperative activity for all)?

Do you realize that your ceding your own, rational thought on the issue, to merely accept Chomsky's view as correct, actually contradicts Chomsky's view,
2) that "all people are capable of comprehending political and economic issues and making their own decisions on that basis?"


3) Do you believe in any Religion? Because, according to Chomsky, unless it can meet a strong test of rational justification, it is illegitimate.


You batting 1000, so far? Let's look a little bit more at these ideas that you want to take, in place of your own, since you are "no intellectual match for Noam Chomsky."

[Snip]

When he was 10 years old, he wrote an editorial for his school newspaper lamenting the fall of Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War and the rise of fascism in Europe. His research then and during the next few years was thorough enough to serve decades later as the basis of “Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship” (1969), Chomsky’s critical review of a study of the period by the historian Gabriel Jackson.
[End]

So, this is curious: he has apparently been lifelong anti- fascist-- ANTIFA, for short-- but he doesn't mention anything about Putin's Russia, having a Fascist regime?

[snip]
According to Chomsky’s anarchosyndicalism, or libertarian socialism, the best form of political organization is one in which all people have a maximal opportunity to engage in cooperative activity with others and to take part in all decisions of the community that affect them.
[end]


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Noam-Chomsky

And we end, back where we began. So are you going to start calling yourself a Liberal Socialist, from here on out-- or are you one, already?

Clearly, Chomsky has an idealistic core. Not that this is a bad thing, but it can leave one open to making flawed assessments, based on that inaccurate model, of believing people can "just get along," without concern about atrocities committed, in pursuit of the goals of some unreasonable dictator. Do you really think that, at this point, Chomsky would not have a much bigger load of criticism for Putin, than he did for the U.S., before the invasion?

Not only does it seem like he might have a little bit of an axe to grind, against the system with which he is most familiar, but if you actually listened to all of your new guru's video, he says that the ONLY solutions to the present situation, lie in EUROPE coming out from under the thumb of the United States, which, he continues to admit, they have not, since WW2, ever done. This makes his analysis of what "could be," about as practically useful, as a bag of kitten purrs.


This can be nice to listen to, though, especially when one is ready to set sail, for Dreamland.

 

You're misrepresenting Chomsky's argument(and I haven't really read much of Chomsky's works, though I too profess to being an intellectual and thus given your explanations of his works, I can clearly see where the misrepresentations lie even if I hadn't for example brought his books. You point out that his view is that "all people are capable of comprehending political and economic issues and making their own decisions on that basis."(This is essentially self-autonomy in a nutshell.)

However, you misconstrue that statement to imply that by agreeing with Chomsky's political view, a person would be ceding their own rational thought. This is nonsensical. Self-autonomy does not invalidate the ability of a person to see the other person's prospective. In Jung's nature vs nurture, I'm of the intellectual camp that it is both nature and nurture. We are born into environments and we are influenced by them, but we also have our own natures reflected as a result of our self-autonomous decisions within that very environment.

So a person could agree with Chomsky's political view, perhaps take it word for word but even if they did all of that, they would still(in Chomsky's view and my own) be their own person. Agreeing with someone does not in anyway cede or limit a person's rational thought.

Now, again I hadn't read Chomsky's view, but if I had to guess given the secular views of western thought that pervade the 21st century, rational judgment would be things such as: The Geneva conventions, the U.N charter of declaration of human rights, etc. Chomsky is essentially saying that these western values should be upheld by any organization with organizing power. I do not think for example, that Chomsky is undermining the religious mythologies and folk tales that govern essentially all religions. Were that his view, he would have so plainly called for the elimination of all religions(there are some intellectuals who hold that as a principle)

In short, you're either selling Chomsky short as an intellectual(and as a fellow intellectual I must stand in his defense.) or you're misrepresenting him deliberately, and so all the same. And yes, this does not invalidate my self autonomy either. On the question of 'everyone can understand', I lean more towards that everyone can understand the basics but not everyone can understand the nuance. And my response to your ill thought views of the philosopher, shows why I take that stance. It would be awesome to have a debate with Chomsky on this particular subject matter.

 

I do not know much about him but I do know one thing he said that I agree with and I believe anyone should agree with regardless of their politics.... I don't remember his exact words but I do remember the gist of it and it was this....

He said the correct thing to do with objectional speech or ideas is not to ban them but to expose them and try to understand why anyone would give them a moment's thought.
(My thoughts next)
If you try to ban ideas you only give them validity, if something is objectional, draw attention to it, highlight why it is objectional and what is wrong with it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, right?

 

We’re not toast.