dal, Historical and Cultural Analysis, April 19, 2010
AmericanPolemic.com pubic blog and discussion forum
AmericanPolemic.com free blog and blogging software

Eclectic News And Opinion

AmericanPolemic.com news and political blog
American Polemic American Polemic
In The News
    Browse This Search For ...

or Browse by Category ...
    Browse This Category

AmericanPolemic.com or Browse by Date Starting On ...
In The News


My Blog Directory

User Account Login
Email
Password

User Account Login


Disclaimer: AmericanPolemic.com contains some copyrighted material for which use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. It is believed that inclusion of this material constitutes not-for-profit, educational use on the Web and thus represents a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.) Fair Use notwithstanding, this site will immediately comply with any copyright owner who wants his or her material removed or modified.

RSS Feed/XML


American Polemic
Why I'm not hip to Chomsky, and never have been
Recently, a friend with somewhat leftist inclinations suggested that I view the included video clip of Noam Chomsky's recent talk at Havens Center, Orpheum Theater, Madison Wisconsin. Well, having listened to the whole talk, it simply confirmed what I already thought of Chomsky: he identifies many problems correctly, and I actually do agree with most of his critiques (although his interpretation of history, particularly the Spanish Civil War and the rise of National Socialism in Germany, is pretty one-dimensional). The problem however, is that his solutions are mostly ineffective, impractical, and unrealistic, in addition to being clichéd.

Throughout the talk he reaffirms the academic left's montra of "it's all the evil corporations", which gets very tiresome for me personally. In addition to being incomplete (at best) in it's accuracy, that charge is just so annoyingly convenient, safe and innocuous ... which is exactly why it's the only acceptable one in the elite circles of polite society within academia: in other words, nothing and nobody is really offended or threatened by it. The reality is, the architects of policy are individuals ... not big faceless entities. Moreover, his assertion that that the banks are just benign players in all of this is utterly ludicrous ("Bankers maximize profit and market share because that's their legal obligation, not because they're bad guys" - Chompsky's words, not mine!). That is 180 degrees from the truth: the capitalist system itself, both national and global - including the "evil corporations" - is a product of international banking and finance - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

When he does offer suggestions, they are always tainted with an attempt to validate his own agenda, and through the use of his verbal skills (he is, after all, a linguist), he continually attempts to characterize his subjective views as objective fact. Case and point is his completely unsubstantiated premise about the flaws it the U.S. health care system: specifically that these problems all stem from it's private nature. He doesn't even consider the possibility that there may be some other issues at play. That's why I've always questioned his label an an "intellectual". An honest academic, gathers and examines evidence, and then draws conclusions from that evidence. Chomsky does the reverse, which is why he's really more of an "ideologue" than a "scholar".

Here's my main issue with Chomsky, though. He's fundamentally an Anarchist, which is a political philosophy that's been around for over one hundred years. Contrary to what so many young people seem to think, there's nothing new or innovative about it. Basically, anarchists are utopians of a sort, who advocate a sort of voluntary Socialism. The problem obviously - at least it's obvious to me - is that this very concept is upside-down and oxymoronic. Aside from the fact that it's base upon the main stream socialist dogma that origins of anti-social behavior are principally economic (which is flies in the face of all observable reality), the fact is that "equality" is not a natural condition, and therefore must be enforced. This of course, implies that there must be an enforcer ... and by definition, the enforcer occupies a higher station than the enforcee... so there's goes your equality right out the window. Anarchists basically ask an endless loop question, and ultimately, like all advocates of Socialism, do not in fact seek to end class distinction, but rather to simply replace the existing aristocracy with another one: namely themselves!

Again, Chomsky's criticisms are mostly valid ... but he offers nothing new in the way of practical remedies, and he never has. It's just the same old psuedo-intellectual, cookie-cutter leftist college professor dribble. (IMHO)

Video: Noam Chomsky, Havens Center, Orpheum Theater, Madison WI 4/2010







American Polemic

Powered by Coastal Graphics Inc. ™
advertising, graphic design, original artwork and illustration,
web site design, web site programming, e-commerce systems, & more!