Why do people call Noam Chomsky a liberal? He's an anarcho-syndicalist

Pretty sure he's never claimed to be one (only term I've heard himself utter is Libertarian Socialist), and to my knowledge he wants to maintain wages and if that's true he would hardly be an anarchist.

How?

None of this is really true. You can feel free to read his "on anarchism" or "government in the future" where he describes his political views. He also calls himself an anarcho-syndicalist in his debate with Michel Foucault. As far as the wage question goes, you can feel free to just google "Chomsky wage labor" – he's talked about how it's basically just slavery.

Because anarchism has its roots in a certain tradition of liberalism

youtube.com/watch?v=60z2zGbGbfE

Why do Americans call leftists liberals, you ask? Because they use self-invented definitions of political terms completely removed from their actual meaning and, as a rule, know very little about politics outside of their capitalist liberal mainstream consensus.

I think it was more that people are trying to insult Noam Chomsky by saying he's not really a socialist, but reading anything actually written by him would be too hard.

I've often defended Chomsky, based on the body of his work. I still do, and will, but other than his production - which is vast - and the contributions that he has made, the very fact that he's back to telling people to vote for the lesser evil and does not (either out of ignorance, or straight up being a little bit of a sell-out himself on such matters) engage in the reality of what happened (complete fraud), and does not advocate for the revolutionary spirit of the people when it fucking matters (right fucking now, and during the complete fraud), makes me at this point view him as someone to ignore, At least on those matters.

I like Noam Chomsky on a personal level, but beyond that, it's here and no further. He has clearly become too comfortable, even as he took plenty of heat in the past and stood against it - which I respect, but jesus. That he of all people ignore the blatant fraud, and advocates lesser evil voting at a time when the evils are so fucking similar you can barely distinguish them anylonger? No, he can go be a lemming by himself.

Be safe Chomsky, but I think I'll stick to my own critical thinking, no?
His dismissal of many things in the past I ignored. This one? No can do. It's too blatant. Anyone that advocates Clinton, or lesser evil voting, and ignores the fraud that was witnessed by millions of people for once, is someone to ignore.

So there you have it, because the guy who endorsed Jill Stein says you should vote for Clinton in swing states, it means that he's not really a socialist.

I don't think anyone argued he was or wasn't a socialist. I'm saying I don't trust anyone, even the "in swing states durr" type, who doesn't bring up the fraud, or in any way suggests voting for Clinton or giving any credibility to the election after such a total actual electoral fraud (that they're now trying to cover up by blaming it on Russia of all things), saying this shit now.

I don't trust his word on this matter, considering how Clinton isn't even someone you could call an opposition to trump to begin with. (and again, ignoring the fraud, even treating it like a credible election "choice" is already selling out)

Satanists do voodoo curse on Chomsky.
youtube.com/watch?v=B32lZsrJ_aQ

It was the first to pick my attention, also ISIS is founded and supported by a lot of US allied countries.
Make your own conclusions.

The fucking old prick turns democrat every fucking election, instead of organizing collectives, for self determination of anarchists workers, he is the ultimate example of armchair anarchism.

The problem for Chomsky and his cult followers is that anarcho-syndicalism has very little relevance to the existing conditions in the world today. Sure, it may have been very radical in the past - and it could probably work in countries where there is a need for strong, militant unions (Bangladesh, for example) - but as far as the West goes, it's basically nil. Green anarchy, indigenism, autonomism, insurrectionism, and the more radical strains of so-called "lifestyle anarchism" (Temporary Autonomous Zone, for instance) have far more relevance to today. Take a look at the kinds of anarchism being PRACTICED in places where anarchists are very active: anarchists in Greece aren't rallying up the unions but engaging in small-scale urban warfare against the pigs and squatting buildings to create autonomous zones and housing for refugees. Anarchists in Spain are the same way: even though the CNT still exists and does a bit of activism in its own right, insurrectionist and militant squatter anarchists are far more active.

The Communist Party USA has endorsed HillBilly. Naturally, Chomsky followed suit.

So Chomsky follows the politics of the CPUSA? Good to know.

outside of academic and leftist circles, no one knows he exists. That,s not controlled opposition, controlled opposition exists within the framework the system in place and must be known my much of the population so as to have support for position that is not an existential threat to existing power system.

he does not.

People are generally bitching because he thinks you should vote for the lesser evil in elections. I think it's a shitty position, but anyone that has read Chomsky knows he holds no illusions that voting for someone like Hillary will change things for the better. He's certainly not a liberal despite what the edgy faggots in this thread claim. Chomsky is good for what he does so I'm not too concerned about his shitty politics. Amazing to see people bitching about Chomsky while sucking off Richard Wolff who holds outright reformist positions on everything, has supported numerous liberals in the past, and rejects the labor theory of value.

who gives a fuck what leftypol thinks about noam? leftypol just sees the big scary "a word" and grabs a state flag for protection. Fuck all of you. Noam did nothing wrong.

The Overton Window runs from 10 to 20 degrees right of center (liberal to conservative in the US). People who aren't woke niggas are not aware of anything left of liberal, so when they hear someone is left wing that's all they can think of.

why do you call him anarcho-syndicalist? he is a jew rat and a piece of shit

The main difference for Chomsky is climate change. Trump literally thinks it's a conspiracy theory whereas Clinton at least acknowledges its existence. That's a big difference.

He's an anarcho-liberal, like literally 95% of modern anarchists that refuse to be proper platformists with good organization and a program.

most of those gmil comics can be summarised as "some leftist do something and leftcoms just berate them for not being perfect"

Well tbf Zizek kinda comes to the same conclusion.

He says we need to make reasonable demands in order to make the rest of the system collaspe, but these demands probably wont be Marxist for a while.

Basically he reaches the same conclusion that Chomsky does but in a better way. Kind of how all relations betweem Marxism and Anarchism go.

Pretty irrelevant, even if true. That GMIL comic just works well for Chomsky. Or are you one of the anti-platformist anarchists I mentioned?

But Zizek is clearly in favor of agitation and violent action ('divine violence', as he put it in The Parallax View). He believes an activism not led by a direct programme or a clear and concise knowledge that action is only meant to force global capital to change is going to be garbage and will only mold itself into the system, without us realizing it.

Chomsky doesn't look into what should be done. He's a researcher. That is what he does. He collects information and publishes it so that others may decide what to do.

Trying to complain about chomsky not telling you to go form a militia or something is just bitching.

nah, I was just referring to GMIL comics in general

...

Maybe because anarcho-syndicalists are too busy ORGANIZING to care about publicity?

how do I add a flag

dammit

no idea

if this isn't b8, welcome newfag.

The flag options are under "show post options & limits."

Also, consider not being a liberal.

But will Clinton do anything about it, especially when she's a big supporter of "free trade" agreements which arguably increase corporate pollution?

there's no winning with you tankie assholes. Whenever an anarchist explains their plan from now till FLAC (full automated luxary communism), you criticize it for being too organized by calling it "reformist" a meaningless buzzword that basically means cant do anything because everything requires some kind of compromise. Otherwise you claim anarchists have no organization like you just did.
Tankies have no actual arguments against anarchists, all bootlickers are the same: multisided assholes that change their stance to whatever it takes to lick boots.

Not only is she a proponent of the trade agreements, she was part of making them. Environmentally, she was marketing and promoting fracking. Kind of doesn't matter what is being said today, or what lies are attempted to weasel out of it. Both Trump and Clinton are (if not diagnosed, for all practical purposes) pathological liars. The badness of both candidates is so morbidly clear, and in such huge contrast to what the people want, that it's kind of crazy to talk about lesser evil voting.

noam "vote for hillary" chomsky
politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192

...

Except for his lame liberal-sounding solutions, Noam Chomsky can be based and this video should distinguish him from any liberal: youtube.com/watch?v=5BXtgq0Nhsc

Because he defines anarchism in such a way that most liberals are anarchists. The way he defines it is "lol critical thinking man"

...

Ya…. no.

tbh most people probably hate chomsky here because he's popular. most of the criticisms I'm seeing here are pretty blatant misinterpretations of chomsky's work that are disproven by reading almost anything by him or listening to him give a lecture

chomsky is a radical environmentalist, and trump would f.ck the environment up in a time of climate change that is way more than what killary fracker clinton does, and that matters to chomsky. i guess that is his line of reasoning, look it up.

That still sounds like you're playing the "pls vote for Hillary because reasons" bullshit.
How would Trump fuck up the climate more than a person who supports and promotes fucking up the climate, where their only practical difference is one acknowledges that (what they do) it fucks up the climate while the other does not.

"Hey, at least this person recognizes that they're murdering people! This other person also murdering people doesn't even call it murder, they're both running around doing it though!"

Wouldn't that just make them both pandering and lying to various audiences and nothing else? Considering how what they actually support (and again you're 1) ignoring the fraud and 2) ignoring that the clintons and the trumps are chummy, same social circles, and systemically partaking and supporting the exact same pro-rich policies, regardless of what they have ever said back and forth) is practically identical?

The only reason for Trump to exist is to make Clinton seem like a (on complete bullshit issues, which is the only thing left for them to try and play on) better option, and voting for either of them is giving credibility to the setup and the literal election fraud that occurred.

The discussion shouldn't even be about 'is clinton or trump worse?', the action and talk should be about 'when do we protest and shutdown every polling station as we live in a democracy that is, in the most vulgar manner, being cheated'.

Forget politics for a second, he's a moron when it comes to science and linguistics. His notion of how language developed is predicated on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. He thinks language evolved so humans could express the poetry in their souls rather than so they could communicate information relevant to survival.

…you've clearly not read anything hes written about language.

Why would I waste time reading that bullshit? I've read the synopsis of his theory and it's clearly less than worthless.

i would also call chomsky's presented realpolitik ill-conceived. my point was that this is his official line of reasoning
i put his arguments here so we can actually debate what he said.

because then you might become slightly less retarded than you very clearly are since you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

saw an article in Time that called Richard Wolff "a liberal economist"

DAE politics is either Democrats or Republicans. :^D

Well, Obama just ratified the Paris agreements, Trump said he would end it. So there's a real difference.

Trump also said he was against the Iraq war, when he wasn't.

Either way, any single person here discussing about "which candidate is the lesser evil" is ignoring the total and utter fraud that occurred.

youtube.com/watch?v=L0v9tvIYpfU

youtube.com/watch?v=jttgkqIfv8Q

It's all bullshit. There is no choice, between Clinton and Trump, only getting you to think that there is (thereby defusing parts of your anger, by "protest voting Trump" or "protest voting Clinton, against Trump", that does nothing but shield the fraud).

The only way to go forward, if you want to move forward via any sort of election or voting, is to point out the fraud and fight against that sort of shittery, every step of the way.

Trump and Clinton were and still are both promoted by the media 24/7. Any other candidate is barely even mentioned.

So you think there's a chance Trump is secretly an environmentalist and just pretends to think that climate change is a hoax? I don't see your point

What?

I think he's capitalist pig in favor of capitalist policies fucking over the poor and residing in the same social circle as his "opposition", who is also a capitalist pig, in favor of policies fucking over the poor.

In pratical terms. how does this distinguish him from any democrat voter?

Yeah, and one capitalist pig is in favour of policies that will destroy the earth whereas the other is in favour of ones that at least try to save it

You can criticise a candidate and still vote for him/her as the least worst candidate. Your suggestion of protesting and shutting down polling stations isn't going to have any real effect on the outcome of the election. Right now you've realistically got 3 options:
1. vote for the least worst option 2. refuse to endorse either candidate and vote for a third party, or abstain from voting 3. have a full blown revolution
Assessing the first of those options, I should make it clear I assume there is a least worst option. If you think that Clinton and Trump are identical in their badness, then the first option is obviously defunct. If, however, you believe one candidate is even slightly worse than the other, and if you believe in acting in a way as such to produce the best foreseeable consequence then it's your duty to vote for the perceived least worst candidate. It should be obvious however, that you can still vociferously oppose the candidate you vote for. You might argue that if you perceive one candidate as only very slightly worse then it might make very little difference to the world if the worse candidate is elected, but it's worth bearing in mind that the position to be decided is the most powerful elected office in the world, and even very slight differences in policy will be felt by hundreds of millions in the US, and billions abroad, and their effects will multiply on this scale; even small differences will profoundly effect the lives of a number of people across the world. It's also worth considering that each candidate belongs to a political party, and as such in office will want to pander to party members, pander to party voters, and have some influence exerted on them by the party to which they belong. As the democrat party has more left wing voters than the republican party, you might, for instance, expect that a democrat president would adopt more left wing policies as a result.
Assessing the second option, a third party candidate has no chance of winning under the electoral system, so refusing to vote, and voting for a third party are functionally equivalent. This option is more of a protest, as it doesn't exert any influence on the outcome of the election, but by not voting for the least worst candidate, it's manifest that you are thereby increasing the likelihood that the worst candidate is elected (assuming there is a worst candidate).
And finally addressing the third option, you get back to me when you have the revolution, buddy.

Has it ever occurred to you that other, proper platformist anarchists (like there are many) also think Chomsky is liberal as shit with his proposals. With all due respect to Chomsky, nobody can deny this. Him formally supporting Clinton over S█████, literally with the rhetoric of 'a vote not for Clinton is a vote for Trump, no need to even try voting for anyone else!' meme the entire liberal discourse has been about and before the race was even decidedly in Clinton's ballpark, should have knocked that into your noggin' already.

Can anybody- here just send him an e-mail and politely ask him why he proposes such liberal-like actions?
He will respond.

I could, I suppose.

Because he's a grown man who doesn't think like a child.

people have asked him this before, the usual answer he gives is that even though the system itself is illegitimate, it is still beneficial to strive for reforms in the short term in order to help the needy, because otherwise you're throwing poor people under the bus in the name of ideological purity.
i kinda agree with him here but i still wish he hadn't said vote for clinton

Didn't Marx also believe later in his life that maybe in industrial advanced countries reform would be possible?

Anyways, didn't Noam say that he knew B████ would lose (we all did) but the point was to keep up the enthusiasm and momentum of his politics beyond the election? He seems to want to create a popular movement with the potential to do something.

I think he only said to vote for Clinton against a Republican in the swing states.

This was said to be the moment for the independent voter, yet we get supposed populists doubling-down on the two-party system. Not purity at all.

He's a moron.

Syndicalists and other leftists who limit themselves to union work will never pose a threat to capitalism.

I think the comic is pretty accurate. Youtube any Chomsky political talk and at the end he pretty much says he's voting democrat because third party is a wasted vote, thus perpetuating the system he just spent an hour talking about how corrupt it was. Some of his recent talks he even says if he lived in a swing state he'd vote for Hilary without hesitation. You can't fucking fix anything if you only vote for one party because "at least they're not the other guys". This is the same shit reason why Britain and Canada are moving towards a corrupt, centrist 2 party system whose power is decided on a handful of (mostly arbitrary) wedge issues; just like the US did. Chomsky has aged and turned to the standard non-revolutionary but "progressive" old person position of trying to slowly reform the system instead of trying tossing it out and trying a new one. He has a good life and probably won't survive another 10-15 years, so it's not like he has anything to loose.

people are just mad because he's a reformist.

ftfy

100% bullshit. There are tons of anarcho-syndicalists in Latin America, way more than insurrectionists.

Hillary won't save the environment. The fact that she created many of the free trade agreements which lead to a great amount of environmental destruction is evidence her "green" aspects are as sincere as Walmart's.

Because Americans suck at politics

Your mistake is that you think voting is important. Chomsky doesn't think you fix the system by voting third party.
Chomsky has always been in favour of tackling issues that are in reach instead of focussing on a revolution that's not going to happen

youtube.com/watch?v=ScMySLaRWzA>>903339

She would support the Paris agreements, Trump would not

CHOMSKY BTFO

theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/25/daniel-everett-human-language-piraha

There's no guarantee.

quit calling his followers a cult. his thought has actual merits.