Marx BTFO (?)

youtu.be/jFqyJYrRHrA?t=1m1s

well, is he right?

Liberals are never right

bump

Once again Chomsky's position is a retarded assumption about 'muh authoritarians' and 'muh hooman netchur'. Radical liberals are pure cancer.

Yes, and no. There are some basic things humans are bound by, but almost none of them are what is assumed by "human nature".

Chomsky is just spooked. It doesnt make him a liberal tho.

...

Chomsky has idealist position without actual knowledge of idealism and its problems.

Saying that human nature is abstract concept set in clouds is same as saying that we are made in gods image.

Roussoue, hobbes,lock, spinoza, kant, hegel all have that idea in their social contracts but they build it on previous theoretical foundations. Chomsky pulls it out of his ass and people clap.

At least

He's a fucking retard.

'They think they're gonna be the molders'

Human nature is not molded by other indivisuals but the material and cultural condtions that people live under. How can he not know this.

That still implies if you affect the two factors you can mold humans into whatever you like, which is horse shit ofcourse but then it would have damaging impliciation to idea of worldwide worker revolution wouldn't it.

Well I don't see how the radical intellectuals are gonna rasically change society all by thenselves.

Marx work is criticism of philosophy of his time. Failure of revolutions that happened in Europe to form better society and egalitarian ideas from which these revolutions were born. Failure of conditions of working class in industrial revolution.

In feudal society you were born king or a peasant. This order was defended by same logic about human nature we have today.

Idea that you can construct abstract human being devoid of any historical and cultural progress and get to logic conclusion of family, state, law is "horse shit".

If you want to derive somekind of social ontology you at least have to do some anthropology everything else is pure scholastics.

Foucault looks like a vampire smh

I'm ancom but I like Zizek and Marx more than Chomsky and Bakunin tbh

Being likeable and being right have nothing at all to do with each other tbh.

...

well that's partly what it implies. saying only environment matters ignores the power of human ideas and myth, and denies human agency

Well, Noam Chomsky is big on inherent characteristics of humans, like language. I think he's just criticizing Marx for ignoring THE ESSENCE of Human Nature. He's not wrong, but I think he's missing the point made by Marx, which seems to be, ceteris paribus, culture/sorroundings defines individual to a great extent.

forgot to remove nigger persona

...

getting a little sick of this fag

He's right about a lot of things, but his critizism of Marxism mainly seems to be a critique of ML, Maoists, Trots and all the other popular branches in during the cold war in the left.

Well Zizek is funnier than Chomsky and Bakunin really didn't write much of note. Kroptokin is a better for anarchism than Bakunin anyway, not only in terms of content but in delivery as well.

And those three tendencies make up the majority of Marxist organizations and Marxists. The chance of stumbling across a Leninist is miniscule and Leftcoms even more so. There's a lot wrong with Chomsky, but assuming Marxists are what you will encounter when you run into self-described Marxists isn't one of them.

For demagogy's sake, does anyone else feel their speakers can never go loud enough to properly hear what Chomsky's saying?

Yeah. I have to use robot ears to be able to hear him clearly. Fucking annoying, but the dude is ancient so it's understandable.

Ideas play second fiddle to the environment.

It doesn't matter how powerful the ideas and myths of your society are, if they aren't congruent with material reality, they aren't going to fly.

For instance, the American Dream has been a very powerful force in American culture, yet hardly anyone believes in it anymore and the idea is outright dead among American millennials.

...