Noam Chomsky Has Gone Senile

You mean rational. Chomsky is just one of the handful of leftists in America who hasn't completely fucking lost his mind and realizes that we aren't in anything resembling a revolutionary situation and therefore shouldn't try to act in an explicitly revolutionary manner.

Can I get a short summary? I'm at work and can't watch it rn.

he said the republican party was the worst party in the history of the world

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The republicans are literal the most evil organization in the world.

Reason: they do not give a shit about climate change lol

Chomsky: republicans have gone crazy and only care about big business interests
Carlgon: *autistic screeching*

It's quite clear he meant it not in terms with morality but with regards to potential implementation of policies that are destructive.

Hi Carl

If we don't do anything about it climate change will wipe out humanity. Chomsky is totally right.

That doesn't mean you should vote for neoliberals.

Sure, bro, the rethugplicans are the devils for ignoring climate change.

We're past the point of no return. No amount of limp dick liberal legislation is going to change that. We can only hope to mitigate the effects now.

The AHCA will kill thousands of americans, those deaths could've been prevented if Hillary was elected, even though she is a shit candidate.

wait is he really an ancap?

They're not just ignoring it, their policies are the main cause of climate change.

nice

Also yes, if you don't think that the Republicans are one of the most destructive forces in the contemporary world with regards to their position of power + their disposition to something destructive and irreversible then you're a moron.

No, he's an anarcho-syndicalist. People call him a liberal because he's skeptical about the possibility of a revolution.

The republicans are the most evil organization on Earth, in human's history.

Gotcha, fam.

No idea how you can be an anarchist unless you believe in complete revolution.

well sargon is right, Chomsky is off his rocket; this was the first time I've ever watched one of his videos, but good god, almost all of it is him over-reacting, there's little to no actual substance.

It's not that he's opposed to the idea, he just believes (rightly so, I think) that we're nowhere even close to have the numbers to entertain that idea.

He doesn't reject a revolution he's just a pragmatist. You can find discussions with him about rather people should engage in revolutionary or reformist activities and he directly advocates for both.

And that's terrible but don't lay that shit at our door. If Hillary wouldn't have run a tone deaf campaign, devoid of any real vision, she may have actually won. An insignificant amount of leftists abstaining didn't lose her the election.

Have you watched that healthcare debate with Bernie and Ted Cruz? The way Cruz tries to spin the republican's policy as "freedom of choice" even though he knows it will result in people dying because they can't afford healthcare. He KNOWS that lives are on his hands and doesn't give a shit. Yeah, that's fucking evil.

Thank god I never said that then. But the shitheads who turn on Chomsky because he wants you to vote for Hillary are fucking braindead.

IT'S MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DIE FROM A PREVENTABLE DISEASE

3 minutes into the video, and he's let Noam say about 5 words. really makes you thinkery.

Noam can barely articulate.

If you want to watch the actual video:

youtube.com/watch?v=edicDsSwYpk

That was the most retarded video I've watched in a long time. It was just Sargon screeching like an autist about an argument Chomsky wasn't even making

He never said "evil" or "worst", he's not passing a moral judgement. He said they're the most dangerous

...

I don't get why people dislike Chomsky endorsing Hillary over Trump out of lesser of evil NOW when he said the same for Obama vs McCain/Romney.

It became cool to be antiestablishent.

People also freaked out about that back then.

Because from an anarchist perspective, lesser evilism makes no sense.

...

Voting isn't something you do in place of activism

This. You might as well use the little power that modern "democracy" gives you, it takes like no effort and shouldn't impede your activism in any way.

webm that shit or get fucking anchored.

"Lesser evilism" is only bad when it's used as an excuse for inaction- and let's face it, any comrade who votes for clinton and then considers their work for the revolution done probably wouldn't have been any use anyways. As is, the rejection of lesser evils itself becomes a catalyst for inaction, the "revolution-or-bust" ideological purity being just an excuse to not work with what we got for the next incremental step forward, but just keep waiting for capitalism to magically die by itself

Sargon is just mad senile chomsky is smarter than he'll ever be

noam was against the BDS movement too
jews gonna jew

Could you please keep e-celebs in /leftytrash/

Dude, you're very bad at trolling.

Lmao

what a pompous cunt

Carl, please eat a shotgun shell.

t. comments
I kek'd

kek

I use the word anarcho-liberal aswell to refer to the lifestylist tendencies and associations within anarchism. Honestly, Chomsky is just old so I can't blame him to vote for lesser evilism, but you shouldn't take his advice.

Sargon blameing Communism for everything.

Tee hee.

Voting isn't something you should do at all.

There's no power in voting, you're just engaging in the spectacle while acting as an unwitting participant in the ruling class power-struggle. Not only is it pointless and a waste of your time, it's also giving your implicit agreement with the system and giving it legitimacy.

There is no lesser evil, they're all ultimately the same, but even if there were, voting for evil is still voting for evil, if the only choices available are evil, then it's better to make no choice at all; non-action is preferable to causing harm.
It should exactly be revolution-or-bust, which is to say, the only actions performed should be revolutionary or none at all. Unless you're protest voting or voting for the next Spartacus just to make a point, not because you're actually trying to accomplish something through Capitalist democracy, then voting is actually counter-revolutionary.

Nice try Carl :^)

...

Surprised that not everyone in the comments was an idiot, but there were quite a few. As usual, Sargon is being an idiot and doesn't understand what Chomsky is trying to say, while adding "omg did he just really say that XDXDXD" as "commentary".

When did Chomsky deny Pol Pot's atrocities. From what I remember watching Manufacturing Consent, he acknowledge it, but highlighted the US media's neglect of the crimes in Timor.

He denied it back in the 80s, back when muh 100 gorillion was even more of a meme than today. He has since acknowledged it, but Pol Pot was funded by the CIA.

I stopped watching the video when the idiot started shouting about the "the republican party is the most dangerous organisation in the world, in human history" thing.

Its a nice, provocative thing to say, and well reasoned in relation to climate change. No proof of Chomsky going senile.

However, I would twist this further: the real danger are nonetheless the more "reasonable" democrats and such, insofar as they may participate in pseudo-activity to make true change even harder. Doing too little while pretending to do enough is worse than being a climate change denier.

Thinking that whether or not Republicans believe in climate change matters is just idealistic nonsense. The Democrats believe in it just fine and they never made any meaningful difference with it in their years of power expect in giving money to green porky to produce useless technology or install some green power that will make 0 appreciable difference. That's because beliefs and opinions don't shape society or the actions of government, but objective material conditions, and the material conditions are that Capitalism cares solely for profit, and saving the Earth or to stop killing it isn't very profitable.

Material conditions affect those beliefs and opinions. They're "reactions", so to say.

Climate change denial is a pretty dangerous reaction to those material conditions. An ideological escapism.

But yes, as I said, democrats might be even more dangerous anyway. Their acts don't believe, even if they themselves "do".

It's not anymore or less dangerous than any other belief. Republican politicians and voters are full of people who don't believe in climate change, conversely Democrat politicians and voters are full of people who do, yet even though the beliefs are radically different, there is no meaningful difference in the outcome. As such, saying Republicans or Republican beliefs are somehow more dangerous than regular Neoliberalism or even most dangerous is just liberal hysterics, and it's very unmaterialistic for a Leftist like Chomsky to say.

Back when Cambodia was closed off and no info was coming out the MSM was already shilling the two gigatrillion who had died, while ignoring east-timor. Chomsky said that hundreds of thousands had probably died but that MSM was full of shit. He later apologized when it turned out 1.5 million had died.

Tell that to the millions of people who will lose their healthcare because of the AHCA. Maybe stop thinking about politics as just a clash of ideologies and start thinking about the material impact it hast on people.

Carl's a retard.
If we accelerate global warming, all human life will end.
It doesn't matter how many "muh genocides" you rattle off, if the repubs are willing to usher in the end-times.