Conservative? and Chomsky

Here's a famous example of propaganda:Could you explain what terms are being used incorrectly, or are being "re-appropriated by subtle redefinition"? "Talked" had the colloquial definition of "revealed a secret" long before World War II.

Oh FFS!!!I didn't say that every act of propaganda ever undertaken relied on the re-appropriation and redefinition of words with positive connotations for the intended audience did I?I said it was a tactic used by propagandists. One tactic amongst a whole host of tactics. Some more subtle than others. Some more effective than others.Do you really think this tactic as I have described it has never been attempted or undertaken? Even if you don't think it applies to this discussion?If so I should give up my day job and become a propaganda consultant. I am brimming with such ingenious and (apparently according to you) original ideas............

Here is Chomsky on the meaning of the word under discussion: I'll leave you and Oni to fight it out between you.

You basically equated them, yes.Sorry, I would have thought that the most memorable and effective propaganda pieces would have been illuminating examples of "re-appropriation by subtle redefinition", but now you seem to be indicating the reverse. I wish you would make an effort to be clearer.Are you sure you're not just labelling it "propaganda" when someone uses a word in service of an ideology you don't agree with, and not actually talking about real propaganda? No, of course not. I just don't yet understand how gobbledygook, which is what you produce when you start using words completely at odds with their definitions, would be effective at emotionally manipulating an audience to support a political agenda. Can you elaborate? Be specific.

This should be your first clue that Chomsky is making up definitions to suit himself, in an attempt to re-appropriate the term "conservative" by subtle redefinition. (Hrm, I wonder what that makes him?)In point of fact approximately 140 million Americans describe themselves as "conservative." Noam Chomsky is just one guy. Isn't he kind of outvoted, here?

Right. So despite the fact you feel the need to be a prick about it you essentially agree with my original point regarding the re-appropriation of words as a propaganda tactic. You just don’t think this form of propaganda is being undertaken in this particular instance.So why the fuck didn’t you just say that rather than post an example that has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand and then proceed to act like a self-righteous dumbass when the irrelevance of your example is pointed out to you? When the original meaning of of a word which has positive connotations for a target audience is slowly changed from it's original meaning you have what we both apparently agree to be a potential case of propaganda.Now whether or not you think the word "conservative" has been intentionally evolved as an act of propaganda or not you surely cannot deny that it has evolved from the original meaning that Chomsky is referring to?The only real question here is how it has evolved and what has caused this evolution. The fact that the word has changed meaning is surely simply inarguable.

Isn't that his point? That the word has been successfully re-appropriated?Whether you think that an act of intentional propaganda or not the fact that the word has been redefined is surely inarguable?

I'm not sure if I agree or not, since the only examples of "subtle re-definition of terms" shown so far has been Chomsky subtly re-defining words.And "prick"? I thought my messages to you were especially polite. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to quote exactly where you thought I was being a prick? I think what we don't agree on is that this would be a form of propaganda anybody would try to use, since it would render your point unintelligible to use terms radically at odds with their accepted definitions. If my propaganda posters say "Raspberry ideas, onion colorless gas", does that effectively communicate my political support for higher taxes on the rich and an expanded social safety net? I don't see how it could. Why do you think Chomsky has the "original meaning"? He's certainly not old enough to predate its modern use, and his formulation of it is radically at odds with the conservativism of Burke and Oakeshotte, the writers widely credited as the intellectual progenitors of conservativism. Can Chomsky be reconciled with Buckley, who defined conservativism for two generations? It's an impossibility.Chomsky isn't using the original definition. That's been my point throughout. He's re-defining the term to suit himself, to appropriate the positive connotations of conservativism. The links that Oni has put forward only prove that to be true.

Sure.By Chomsky, as I've proven.

The key here is subtle change over time. Nobody is suggesting "radically at odds with accepted definitions" as you keep asserting. Well as used in the quotes I supplied he is using it in a way that is very consistent with the way that our prime minister (the leader of the conservative party) uses the term when speaking about his political philosophy. Small state. Dispersed power. Cynical attitude towards grandiose state driven or centralised dictates and ideologically inspired projects. Etc.Now I don't think Cameron's words and actions add-up on this. But he certainly seems to use the term under discussion in the way Chomsky is referring to it when speaking idealistically of his "conservative values". Must just be your natural charming demeanor then.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Here is an extract from a speech by David Cameron. Compare his use of "conservative" with that being advocated by Chomsky in Message 33. They seem pretty compatible to me. David Cameron speech

What change, specifically? The notion of smaller government, lassez-faire attitudes towards markets, and deference to social tradition dates back to Edmund Burke, circa 1750 or so, when he debated in opposition to Dr. Richard Price's philosophy of the universal rights of man. Well, Chomsky and Oni are, when they try to define "anarcho-socialist" as a form of "conservativism." Burke expressed open horror at the notion that a people should dissolve the bonds that held them citizens to a nation. What would you call "socialism" if not a centralized, dictated, grand ideological project? What would you call "anarchy" except an absurd, utopian fantasy?I mean the idea that Chomsky is promoting a modest government is just absurd. Chomsky wants a government big enough to make sure nobody else tries to start one (anarchism), big enough to make sure nobody asserts ownership of any resource or means of production (socialism.)Nothing about Chomsky's notion to remake society is "conservative" - in any sense, most especially in the sense of intellectual conservativism as inherited from Burke and, later, Oakeshott. I really can't help it, Stragg, if you're determined to read every single post of mine in the same asshole voice.

Try Burke (18th Century)

quote:

---

This policy appears to me to be the result of profound reflection, or rather the happy effect of following nature, which is wisdom without reflection, and above it. A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improvement. It leaves acquisition free, but it secures what it acquires. Whatever advantages are obtained by a state proceeding on these maxims are locked fast as in a sort of family settlement, grasped as in a kind of mortmain forever. By a constitutional policy, working after the pattern of nature, we receive, we hold, we transmit our government and our privileges in the same manner in which we enjoy and transmit our property and our lives. The institutions of policy, the goods of fortune, the gifts of providence are handed down to us, and from us, in the same course and order. Our political system is placed in a just correspondence and symmetry with the order of the world and with the mode of existence decreed to a permanent body composed of transitory parts, wherein, by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom, molding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole, at one time, is never old or middle-aged or young, but, in a condition of unchangeable constancy, moves on through the varied tenor of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus, by preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete. By adhering in this manner and on those principles to our forefathers, we are guided not by the superstition of antiquarians, but by the spirit of philosophic analogy. In this choice of inheritance we have given to our frame of polity the image of a relation in blood, binding up the constitution of our country with our dearest domestic ties, adopting our fundamental laws into the bosom of our family affections, keeping inseparable and cherishing with the warmth of all their combined and mutually reflected charities our state, our hearths, our sepulchres, and our altars.

---

quote:

---

BELIEVE ME, SIR, those who attempt to level, never equalize. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levelers, therefore, only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground. The association of tailors and carpenters, of which the republic (of Paris, for instance) is composed, cannot be equal to the situation into which by the worst of usurpations an usurpation on the prerogatives of nature you attempt to force them.

---

quote:

---

Our people will find employment enough for a truly patriotic, free, and independent spirit in guarding what they possess from violation. I would not exclude alteration neither, but even when I changed, it should be to preserve. I should be led to my remedy by a great grievance. In what I did, I should follow the example of our ancestors. I would make the reparation as nearly as possible in the style of the building. A politic caution, a guarded circumspection, a moral rather than a complexional timidity were among the ruling principles of our forefathers in their most decided conduct. Not being illuminated with the light of which the gentlemen of France tell us they have got so abundant a share, they acted under a strong impression of the ignorance and fallibility of mankind. He that had made them thus fallible rewarded them for having in their conduct attended to their nature. Let us imitate their caution if we wish to deserve their fortune or to retain their bequests. Let us add, if we please, but let us preserve what they have left; and, standing on the firm ground of the British constitution, let us be satisfied to admire rather than attempt to follow in their desperate flights the aeronauts of France.

---

From Reflections on the Revolution in France.In short - change should be slow and considered. We should conserve the principles our ancestors passed on to us on the grounds that they worked. Radical change might well ruin everything - treat our ancestor's legacy with respect etc. What stays has stayed so because it is good, what does not work is discarded.That's real conservativism!

So, David Cameron is more proof for the notion that libertarianism isn't conservativism. Check. They don't seem to be talking about the same thing at all. Did you notice that Chomsky was talking about the United States and that David Cameron is in the UK? Just wondering.

Um, no, he participates in global political issues, specifically those where the US is involved. 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. 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. Automatically? Never said that...Like Straggler has said, and you agreed: Now whether or not it has been undertaken in this case is what we're debating. So we'll see where it ends up. 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. 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."