Chomsky identifies himself as a conservative in the traditional sense, and I've read enough and listened to enough Chomsky to understand why he feels this way. I can agree that the definitions have changed, and so did Chomsky, but that doesn't negate their orignial definition. Especially if, like I said and you quoted:
quote: Perhaps, just maybe, today's use of the terms are more propaganda based, and not really representative of the true meaning of the words.
If this is the case, both words are being used as punchlines to media instigated bullshit, like the abortion argument.
Even if it is just me and Oni, we can go round and round anyway.
No doubt.
Lets start with the facts first:
AE writes:
when I think Conservative, I think back to the father of the conservative movement in the 20th century (and that is why he is in my signature): Barry Goldwater (Republican Senator from Arizona 1950s-1980s).
Do you see this as the original source of the conservative movement in the US?
Or do you see him as the source for the type of conservative views that you share?
Because conservatism goes back to the Founding Fathers. And a stronger conservative movement than Goldwaters, which didn't take off until after Goldwater got the presidential nomination, was Buckley's.
It is a fact that the way it is used in the US is totally different from how the word is used throughout the rest of the world. Which is how Chomsky uses it. Which is why crashfrog and hyro both see him as a liberal.
And even by todays definition, Chomsky falls into a moderate/conservative position because he doesn't like Obama, hates NPR, and is totally against pornography and things like legalized prostitution. Plus his stance on abortion favors both sides.
So we have two defintions to at least recognize that people CAN and DO use to represent themselves, and that must be respected. To force anyone into one particular definition because that's the one favored in this country, and not recognize the other, is wrong.
I think they get thier definitions from contemporary sources, or maybe even the news media, on how liberals are to think and how conservatives like me are to think.
That's just it though, if the terms are being used by the media for propaganda purposes, you would see that intent to tell people how to think.
what is conservative to you? (we could discuss liberalism too, i just dont know much about it)
So here's where you would have to make a distinction between US conservatism and the rest of the world's definition of conservatism.
Hell, in Australia there's the Liberal Party of Australia which are moderate/conservatives. So which version do you want answered?
If it's the US version, I go with Buckley and that movement, up until Regan and his battle with Russian communism. Now it is lead by quasi-celebrities like Beck and O' Reily and has become a tool for the media and propaganda.
quote:Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism is a group of political philosophies which promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the alleged coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists use to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism or as a synonym for socialist anarchism.
So as you can see, he most certainly is not in favor of statism, and prefers stateless society.
If he has claimed some state influence it is only until it can be overthrown.
quote:Some libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky, are willing to use the powers of the state until it can be overthrown; he says: "There is no conflict. You should use whatever methods are available to you. There is no conflict between trying to overthrow the state and using the means that are provided in a partially democratic society, the means that have been developed through popular struggles over centuries."
Any libertarian socialist favors anarchism, and are anti-statism.
quote:Libertarian socialists regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression, leading them to oppose the state.
In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary associations (usually collectives, communes, cooperatives, commons, or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process.
So where's your evidence of Chomsky ever being a statist? Those who favor libertarian socialism, as Chomsky does, are not liberals, are not statist.
Chomsky is a liberal by today's standard
Can you provide one single example of this? Or will these still be baseless assertions?
On this scale, Chomsky is anything but a classical liberal. While he espouses rationalism, he also believes the power of the state is required to manage most everything.
Only until the state can be overthrown.
quote:Some libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky, are willing to use the powers of the state until it can be overthrown; he says:
"There is no conflict. You should use whatever methods are available to you. There is no conflict between trying to overthrow the state and using the means that are provided in a partially democratic society, the means that have been developed through popular struggles over centuries."
Socialists wanted to improve the lot of the worker immediately; Marxists wanted the contradictions of capitalism to sharpen into armed revolution.
Those "Marxist" were not true followers of Karl Marx's socio-political and economical philosophies. If they were, they would not conflict with the basic philosophies of true socialism. Questions is, were those socialist true socialist? Example: Castro's Cuba is neither a socialist state nor a true communist state, yet it claims to be both.
He didn't see how an industrial capitalist economy could both benefit workers and make the rich richer.
I question the very same thing.
That only works in good times, though--not like now--and under conditions of constant economic expansion.
Today's economy is not unique, it is a recurring problem and its an inherent quality of capitalism. But personally, I think its no better or worse than socialism; humans tend to fuck things up, no matter how good the idea looked on paper. That's an inherent quality of humans.
quote:Yes. It's not true that he's a libertarian or a conservative, regardless of what he says. Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake.
Such confidence, such knowledge of Chomsky and conservatism, and yet not one post on a thread dedicated to Chomsky and his position/s? ...for tiny, infant baby Jesus' sake!
- Oni
"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."
If Chomsky's positions are so far removed from the accepted definition of the word "conservative" that you (and he) has to explain that it's actually the "original" version of the term, or something, then you're just proving my point - according to the English language circa 2010, Chomsky isn't a conservative.
And if you don't bother to seek out the true nature of how someone is using the term, how the term is used throughout the entire globe, and what the origins are, then you have a narrow scope on reality.
The US doesn't define terms and words the way it wants to, and just because the media has painted a picture of what a conservative is and a liberal is, doesn't mean that is the true definiton of these words.
But in any case, many of Chomsky's beliefs and social intuitions are shared with conservatives. This too makes him closer to conservatives. I have linked videos, his own words, and a wiki page to support this.
The notion that somehow only Chomsky is the inheritor of the "true" definition of "conservativism", and all others are "fake" conservatives, is too stupid to even necessitate response.
And yet no one has claimed this, so why would you bother responding to it?
Chiomsky is a liberal regardless of what he calls himself.
Yes, you keep saying this, but you have shown no proof of it.
WHY is he a liberal? Hint: This is when you should provide evidence.
- Oni
"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."
We don't live in a world where Chomsky can radically re-define, or de-define, the word "conservative" and expect to merely escape all the connotations of that description just because he says he means something else
But he isn't doing that, he is using the word by it's well established definition. It may not be equal to what the US neo-cons defines a conservative as - the way you seem to have blindly accepted the word - but then that's the whole point Chomsky is making.
That's what those words mean.
Ok then, since you haven't given any set definitions for these words except point to the different arguments each side favors, what do those words mean?
"Liberal" and "conservative" are words that had a meaning long before either of you came around here, and to say "well, I use the term as they were used in 1776" is all very well and good, but you need to take responsibility for the fact that people are going to be constantly misunderstanding you if they interpret your remarks in the context of the English language, circa 2010.
It is the way the word is used today aroud the world.
The US definition of the word is the propaganda version. I provided links for all these facts, you should read them so you don't continue to make an ass out of yourself by not wanting to accept the evidence.
Chomsky claims this, and you did, too.
Neither Chomsky nor I have claimed that Chomsky gets to define his own words; the way he uses the term conservative has a very well established definiton. Its in books and everything. Chomsky is a socialist/libertarian, that political philosophy is older than Chomsky and had already established it's beliefs long before he got there. He is just repeating what is already known about socialist/libertarians. Thay are conservatives.
You've shown the proof, Oni. I don't need to lift a finger, you've already proven my point.
So I was right in the other thread, you won't concede. Now you even refuse to show evidence to support your position by claiming I've proven it for you.
Aight then, dude, let me try it another way: Do you have any evidence of Chomsky supporting a liberal agenda?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."
No he is not, if you'd follow the links I provided, his use of the word is quite modern, it is the way it is used throughout the rest of the world, currently, today.
Chomsky lives in the United States, where these terms have meaning.
But the meaning for the word in the US is unique only to the US. And, for that reason, is not properly used. That is the whole point Chomsky is making by using the word with their propery definiton.
Oni writes:
The US definition of the word is the propaganda version.
CF writes:
So?
So? So, if the word is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons, it is the US who has re-defined the word to mean whatever they want it to mean. The US doesn't get to do that, when the entire world uses it differently, then claim it is the correct use of the word, when clearly it is not.
That doesn't justify Chomsky's attempts to re-define words wholesale for everybody else, eve if it's true.
No matter how much you try to establish that he is using it on his own terms, he is not. He is using it the correct way, the way it is recognized in the rest of the world. Especially in that part of the world where English, the language, originated.
People use these terms in a radically different way than Chomsky does, and he's simply inviting confusion and misunderstanding when he insists "oh, no, I'm the one using the term the right way, not everybody else."
People in the US are using it radically different from what the word was actually meant to define, that is the point. You are advocate the improper use of the word, and because you happen to live in the place where it is being misused, doesn't make your argument a good one. The point is to recognize that people in the US are misusing the word so you don't get confused when others use it correctly.
They're not. They can't be, since no government has ever been socialist/libertarian - there's nothing to conserve.
You do understand that, one, a socialist/libertarian is not in favor of a governing body, right? So that would eliminate the need for an established government, in fact, it would be ridiculous to to say something like that. It would be like someone claiming they are a Marxist government, yet Karl Marx himself, and his description of communism in his manifesto, was completely anti-government. How on earth can you have a Marxist government, or an anarchist government? The two don't go together.
So that's one thing, socialist/libertarians are opposed to structured government, it's anarchism for tiny, infant baby Jesus' sake!
Two, you do realize that we are talking about political philosophies, and there doesn't need to be an actual representative of any philosophy for the ideologies within the philosophy to still be describable and understandable, right?
What are they trying to conserve? Really? You clearly have not even bothered to read about it if you're asking that kind of question.
Sure: he's a socialist/libertarian, as you've demonstrated.
And by all definitions of this political philosophy, they are conservatives, so what, if anything, is your point?
Or are you changing the very defintion of social/libertarians to fit YOUR narrow defintion of the word? Are you subjecting socialist/libertarians to the US definition only?
You still haven't presented one single shread of evidence to support your notion that Chomsky is a liberal. You are now claiming that by him declairing to be a socialist/libertarian that that makes him a liberal, when the only known defintion of that political philosophy declares itself conservative. Are you really that stubborn as to not see the problem with that?
Concede that you've made a mistake in judgement and walk away with dignity, it's the right thing to do. C'mon froggy, you know I'm right in this matter. Just say it, say I'm right...
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."
Chomsky doesn't live in "the rest of the world", he lives in the United States and participates in US politics.
Um, no, he participates in global political issues, specifically those where the US is involved.
And, sorry, but there's no place in the world where "conservative" means "anarcho-socialist." By definition.
Interesting, since anarcho-socialism is by defintion communitarianism, which, by defintion, is totally opposed to liberalism:
quote:Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
Sorry, this would require you to accept that the rest of the world outside of the US exists, though. If you can make that leap, then perhaps you'd see the error in what you're saying.
So US definitions would seem apropos considering we're talking about US politics.
But we're not, in anyway, discussing US politics. We're discussing the meaning of a word. I have accepted that the US re-defined the word, I gave both defintions of the word in earlier posts.
From what basis do you assert that "propaganda" is automatically an "incorrect" use of a word?
Automatically? Never said that...
Like Straggler has said, and you agreed:
Straggler writes:
Propagandists take words that have positive connotations for those that they wish to motivate and re-appropriate those words to meet their own ends through subtle redefinition. No?
Do you really think this tactic as I have described it has never been attempted or undertaken?
CS writes:
No, of course not.
Now whether or not it has been undertaken in this case is what we're debating. So we'll see where it ends up.
Anarcho-socialism can never be conservative, by definition. Not by any definition of the term at use in the English-speaking world.
You've shifted the argument here and have lost focus on what we're discussing. Chomsky called himself a conservative and a Libertarian/Socialist. He didn't say he was a conservative because he was a Libertarian/Socialist.
That's one point.
The other point is, anarco-socialism is completely opposed to liberalism, as I've shown you in the above quote. So, by defnition, it cannot be what it is directly opposed to.
This makes Chomsky not the most infamous liberal in the world.
It can declare itself a double-ended dildo, for all I care. Self-declarations are meaningless,
So you're saying the US is a double-ended dildo?
This is what you still haven't done, present your evidence that shows Chomsky is a liberal, specifically a liberal. Or, the most infamous of such liberals. You can ramble on about anarchism and liberaterain-socialism, but when these political philosiophies are in directly opposed to liberalsim, the is no reason to proclaim as you have that Chomsky is a liberal. By definiton, he cannot be. His political philosophies, by defnition, are opposed to liberal politics.
You don't want to call him a conservative, or accept the fact that the US has re-defined these words, or that these political philosophies are opposed to liberalism, fine.
But you will have to eventually show evidence to support your claim that some how he is a liberal, or you can concede that he is not a liberal. Your choice...
- Oni
"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."
How does he "participate", as opposed to just "comments on"?
By speaking to people, at their request, on how to oppose government and build from his model of anarchism, throughout the world. You can find plenty of youtube videos about this.
That's just a few videos. There is a collection of of his work on the internets discussing most major world issues and lecturing on how to overcome capitalism and instill his model of politics.
"Totally opposed"? Did you even read your own quote?
Oh snap! You got me! No wait, you should have included the entire quote:
quote:Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds.
Opposes it on those grounds.
As for the piece you quoted, you almost understood it:
quote:Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
Liberal theories of justice.
Swing 'n miss...
We're two US citizens discussing the perspective of a third US citizen named "Noam Chomsky", one of the nation's most famous liberals behind Saul Alinsky and Michael Moore.
And how is this us discussing US politics?
Why is propaganda automatically an incorrect use of the word?
It isn't automatically an incorrect use of the word.
As I said:
quote:So, if the word is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons,
If the word is being used incorrectly, then it is incorrect. And if it is being used incorrect for propaganda reasons, then it is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons.
Declaring yourself "conservative" doesn't make you one, either, unless you hold to conservative positions and ideologies, because words mean things.
But Chomsky DOES hold conservative positions, by the US definition that you're using even. Yet you have not provided one single shread of evidence of him supporting liberal ideologies, not ONE.
I linked all those lovely videos on the other thread, about 5 of them, of Chomsky expressing, by US definiton, so you don't get sand in your vagina, conservative views. Go back and check them out, it'll learn 'ya something.
As I've shown, even the material you've put in support of your contentions proves you wrong - the philosophies are not "directly opposed" to classical liberalism.
Interestingly enough, that's exactly what it says:
quote:Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds.
Words mean things crashfrog, and when those words say exactly what I'm saying, that means I'm right and you're wrong.
At some point, Oni, you're going to have to admit that your own evidence has proved that Noam Chomsky is accurately regarded as "liberal".
I tell you what, if you'll allow it, let other people chime in on this thread and lets get their opinion. So we don't have to keep going back and forth.
Is Chomsky a liberal or not?
And again, can you provide evidence to support that he is a liberal? As in, his position on Obama, healthcare, the tea party...something like that.
In fact, here is a video of Chomsky siding with the issues of the Tea Party:
I wasn't even going to chase you down about it, but you just had to bump the thread at me, so that's how it's going to be.
Dude, you don't have to chase me down, I'll come find you.
So, he just comments then. Exactly what I thought.
Not at all. He is a political activist, worldwide. Now you're just being a prick.
Right - "those grounds" being that classical liberals don't take collectivism far enough.
No, not because of collectivism.
The quote yet again:
quote:Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds.
It is ontologically and epistemologically incoherent. Opposes it on those grounds.
Well, we're talking about Chomsky and his place in US politics.
We're discussing whether Chomsky is a conservative or not, you are trying to shove that into a discussion about US politics. But for the word conservative we must view the entire world.
Don't you remember how all this got started, Oni? Don't tell me you've forgotten:
DIfferent thread, different issue. This is soley on Chomsky and why he considers himself a conservative.
So answer the question, for the third time: why is propaganda automatically an incorrect use of the word?
Holy infant baby Jesussssss, it is not automatically incorrect when used for propaganda. In this case it is being used incorrectly by the US and their propaganda.
He's opposed to American military adventurism.
Finally you go where you should have gone.
Does Obama and the liberal party really oppose the military?
He's opposed to social mores being informed by Christianity and especially opposed to the notion that the law should impose those Christian norms.
So he supports the separation of church and state and this is solely a liberal position?
He's opposed to reverence of tradition.
Show me the proof.
Can you show me where "directly opposed" appears in that material? Not just "opposed", but "directly" or "totally" "opposed", as you claimed.
Ontologically and epistemologically incoherent... maybe I used "totally" too frivilously, but it is without a doubt opposed to it on the grounds of it being incoherent.
Incoherent because they don't take enough of a commitment to collectivism. Are you even reading your own links, Oni?
Yes I am, and it doesn't say "because they don't take enough of a commitment to collectivism."
US politics has always been the context, that's where we started and that's where we still are.
Sorry, crash, but I am not strickly speaking about US politics. I have repeatedly said that his definition is how the word is used throughout the rest of the globe. And it is, since there are even conservative-liberal parties in other countries - Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, Liberal Party of Australia. You seem to be stuck on conservative meaning anti-gay marriage and pro-life, when that, again, is the contemporary use and has nothing to do with the classical conservative movements, since those pre-date the anti-gay marriage and pro-life arguments.
Again, you can't seem to break out of the US propaganda based definition.
Yeah? Did you read Burke and Oakeshott yet?
You have provided no links to support your position, if there is something you want me to read give me the link, as I've done for you, and I'll read it.
Further - "their" propaganda? Whose? The United States? Like, you're saying the government is issuing propaganda about conservatives and liberals? Can you provide an example of this propaganda, please?
I'm saying the word is being used incorrectly, and in that incorrect definition are the anti-gay marriage, pro-life, pro-gun arguments that have been described as conservative positions. But they are not in the classical sense. The fact that the US continues to do this is the propaganda.
I didn't say "the military", now did I?
You said military adventurism, which means they support the military. Or can you explain that better?
I'm not trying to be dishonest, that's how I read it. Don't be a prick, if I read it wrong or you didn't mean that then just explain it better.
The separation of church and state is inherently liberal, and conservatives are opposed to it.
Evidence please...or am I just supposed to accept all these bare assertions?
So you admit that they're not totally opposed, just opposed in ontological grounds. Progress.
Yes, they are opposed to it. You don't like my "totally" in there, cool, I'm a nice dude, I'll take it out. Doesn't change the fact that they are opposed to liberalism which cannot by definition make them a liberal. Which you have at least accepted, I have to go to extremes to double back to my point with you I see...either way, progess.
Now it seems like the examples you gave to show Chomsky is a liberal have failed (military, church and state - unless you provide evidence, capitalism) - so, got anything else? Any other reason position he has that makes him a liberal?
Please note that I have shown he is opposed to Obama, against pornography and prostitution, sides with he issues of the Tea Party, hates NPR, and recognizes that both sides of the prolife/choice debates make valid points. For any other person, you would considered a conservative, at the very least, a moderate, yet you stubbornly remain unconvinced of it?
What more do you need?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."
The meaning of "conservative" as being advocated by Crash is the most modern and increasingly prevalent use of the term (arguably due to US cultural and thus linguistic dominance).
This is the main point to focus on, IMO. And while I do recognize the fact that the US's version is the most modern and increasingly prevalent, I also recognize the one advocated by Chomsky and consider both relevant defintions - arrived at by different means, but relevant in their own right nonetheless.
I am interested to see where Oni goes with this.
Crash's typical argumentative distractions not with standing, I think I have made my point quite coherently. Current use of the word -vs- traditional use of the word - Chomsky favors the traditional use, which is relevant, used globally, and there is no reason to think it's wrongfully used.
Also, I have presented evidence showing Chomsky favoring, by the US defintion of the word, a conservative positions on many issues. Any one else would have been considered a conservative and at the very least a moderate, yet Crash stubbornly holds that he is the most infamous liberal known to mankind. Which is crazy to consider an Obama hating, anti-porn, Tea Party issues supporter a liberal.
On reflection I am not sure that I am particularly helping on that front.
Of course Crash won't everrrr concede because that's what he does, just shifts the argument around and try to distract once he's shown he's wrong but, IMO you have supported my position with your own facts and your own argument. So I for one think you have helped establish the fact that Chomsky is most likely a conservative, if not at the very least a moderate by US standards.
But I am particularly interested in the conclusion that the modern American use of the term "conservative" has come about specifically as the result of "propaganda".
It'll take me a few to construct something coherent as it requires me to go through a bit of history before we can start to understand the contemporary use and reasons for it. I'll wake 'n bake tomorrow morning and put together something for us to begin the debate. It is and interesting phenomenon though and fun to explore.
I just question whether this is a planned act in the way that propaganda seems to suggest or just the result of opportunism, bandwagoning and the natural evolution of language.
If you don't dispute that it is being used with a specific political agenda, then it follows that those who are using it play an active role in molding it. I'll try to present the best possible argument to support that.
™ Version 4.2
