Noam Chomsky, yea or nay?

 
Billy Shears
 
Avatar
 
 
Billy Shears
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  09-10-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2008 15:06
 
FrankChurch - 21 August 2008 06:57 PM

We all know that social structures get corrupted.  Authoritarian ones even more so; this is why anarchism makes the most sense.

  Authority misuse their power, corrupted by that power.  This is why cops beat up innocent blacks, etc.

And why do you think we need cops in the first place?  Why do you think there are criminals who prey on other people?  What do you intend to do about them in your anarchic society?  There are people willing to commit murder, rape, armed robbery, and other violent offenses in our society right now, even though our laws promise that society will punish them for their offenses.  What makes you think it will be better living with these people when society lacks the structure to impose and enforce its laws?  And what makes you think it will be better to live with those people who would also be out there committing crimes, but don’t do so now because of fear of societies retribution, but who will no longer fear that retribution in the absence of our social order? 

FrankChurch - 21 August 2008 06:57 PM

I do not need any social structure to guide my free will or my life.  I am my own guide and my own best interest.

You may not need it.  Why is it that you are blind to the obvious fact that there are people in the world who do need it?  And how are you going to deal with them in the absence of it?

FrankChurch - 21 August 2008 06:57 PM

We also have cooperatives all over the US, they work real well.  Argentina has some forms of cooperative factories.  Democratic socialism is springing up in South America.  Hugo Chavez is da man.

The irony of an anarchist praising an authoritarian dictator is so great my head may explode.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2008 15:07
 
Billy Shears - 21 August 2008 06:56 PM
FrankChurch - 21 August 2008 06:49 PM

Authoritarian structures are not democratic.

You seem to have a very black and white mentality.  The world is full of shades of gray.

FrankChurch is a fricking Troll, Billy, but you’re much too dim to recognize it unless someone like me yanks your chain.

 
 
Billy Shears
 
Avatar
 
 
Billy Shears
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  09-10-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2008 15:10
 
Salt Creek - 21 August 2008 07:07 PM
Billy Shears - 21 August 2008 06:56 PM
FrankChurch - 21 August 2008 06:49 PM

Authoritarian structures are not democratic.

You seem to have a very black and white mentality.  The world is full of shades of gray.

FrankChurch is a fricking Troll, Billy, but you’re much too dim to recognize it unless someone like me yanks your chain.

Blow me.  I’m sick and tired of assholes like you coming into a thread and being the first to throw a gratuitous insult, and then whining about what a “bully” I am when I very understandably respond with irritation.  Fuck off.

He may be a troll, but I’ve seen enough people who really think like him to make me take him for at least a possibly authentic.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2008 15:18
 
Billy Shears - 21 August 2008 07:10 PM

He may be a troll, but I’ve seen enough people who really think like him to make me take him for at least a possibly authentic.

Did I say that one couldn’t be a troll and actually believe what one represents? You manage to excel at it.

 
 
Lapin Diabolique
 
Avatar
 
 
Lapin Diabolique
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  10-11-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2008 16:18
 
Billy Shears - 21 August 2008 07:10 PM

Blow me…..  I’m sick and tired of assholes like….  Fuck off.”

I am truly happy (no sarcasm) to see you let go like this Billy.

Feels good, doesn’t it ?

But please stop this nonsense of accusing other posters of “foaming at the mouth”.

It just isn’t becoming my dear.

 
 
Billy Shears
 
Avatar
 
 
Billy Shears
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  09-10-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2008 17:00
 
Salt Creek - 21 August 2008 07:18 PM


Did I say that one couldn’t be a troll and actually believe what one represents? You manage to excel at it.

Oh spare me.  You certainly don’t have the moral high ground after coming into what was, up to now, a perfectly civil thread, and insulting someone without any provocation whatsoever.

Sander - 21 August 2008 08:18 PM

I am truly happy (no sarcasm) to see you let go like this Billy.

Feels good, doesn’t it ?

Actually no.  It was better when things were civil.  Pity someone else didn’t see fit to leave it that way.

Sander - 21 August 2008 08:18 PM

But please stop this nonsense of accusing other posters of “foaming at the mouth”.

It just isn’t becoming my dear.

Neither is misplaced blame.  Or piling on. 

I trust it is clear by now I am more than willing to engage in a flame war if that’s what the other side wants.  It also ought to be clear that I am perfectly willing to have a cordial, polite debate, despite differences of opinion, if that’s what the other side wants.  In fact, that’s what I’d prefer.  Unfortunately, there are people on this board who just can’t disagree with someone without getting nasty.  Well, if that’s the way you want it.  Fine.  I’ll oblige you.  Pity it’s got to be that way, but I’m not going to be fired on without firing back.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2008 18:33
 

Thread participants need to recognize that the picture Billy uses for an avatar is an actual photograph,
just as mine is an actual photograph of me. wink

 
 
Airy Spirit
 
Avatar
 
 
Airy Spirit
Total Posts:  277
Joined  10-02-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2008 05:01
 

I LOVE Noam Chomsky.

 
FrankChurch
 
Avatar
 
 
FrankChurch
Total Posts:  26
Joined  21-08-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2008 06:28
 

Well, if you go to the HarlanEllison.com site and go to the pavilian/forum you will notice I am a regular poster there; have been for many years.  Harlan, as you know, is an award winning fantasy writer.  Carstonio, who is a regular here knows me as well.  Hi Carstonio? 

——————-

  Yes, I expected a civil debate, but in this day and age of shout and puke politics, especially of the FOX variety, I am not surprised by some attitudes here, who do not want their elite opinions questioned by a member of the unwashed.  I know you guys want a special little club, but this is an open forum and Harris is well liked, even on Ellison’s page, where I have scrums about him there. 

  I do want to have a civil discussion about anarchism/Chomsky/radicalism. 

  Certain people show that they are not intellectually capable of honest debate.  You know who u b. 

————————

  The human nature argument is the shuck that is most often used in debates against anarchists.  The answer is pretty easy:  science knows little about human nature.  We know little about insects let alone humans.  Why humans are good or bad is a debate that continues, in science and in religion.  Probably why religion exists. 

  The thing that I find funny is the fact that people want a social order, but they don’t seem to understand that any social order would involve actual humans.  What about their human nature?  Wouldn’t the social order chiefs be subject to the same laws?  With power, they may even be more evil.  We see that in the corporate structure, for sure. 

  Any social order would be lead my humans, corrupted by power and by hubris.  Better that we have an organic order, lead by humans, in solidarity with each other. 

  Sure there is group madness, but there is also group solidarity.  The international peace movement is proof of that. 

———————-

  Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.  He was democratically elected—several times.  Venezuela leads in popularity polls in that region.  The poor love him, the rich hate him—a good indicator.  lol. 

  You have to go beyond the propaganda media to get a rational view of Chavez.  Sure, he is not a perfect leader, but compared to Bush, he is a peach.

 
FrankChurch
 
Avatar
 
 
FrankChurch
Total Posts:  26
Joined  21-08-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2008 06:39
 

You guys may like this.  A debate between Hitchens and radical writer Tariq Ali about the war in Iraq:

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/10/12/tariq_ali_v_christopher_hitchens_a

 
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
22 August 2008 11:27
 
FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  The human nature argument is the shuck that is most often used in debates against anarchists.  The answer is pretty easy:  science knows little about human nature.  We know little about insects let alone humans.  Why humans are good or bad is a debate that continues, in science and in religion.  Probably why religion exists. 

  The thing that I find funny is the fact that people want a social order, but they don’t seem to understand that any social order would involve actual humans.  What about their human nature?  Wouldn’t the social order chiefs be subject to the same laws?  With power, they may even be more evil.  We see that in the corporate structure, for sure. 

  Any social order would be lead my humans, corrupted by power and by hubris.  Better that we have an organic order, lead by humans, in solidarity with each other. 

  Sure there is group madness, but there is also group solidarity.  The international peace movement is proof of that.

Idealism is great, but it always has to be mellowed out by a bit of pragmatism.  I suggest reading Doris Lessing’s book Prisons We Choose to Live Inside.

 
Billy Shears
 
Avatar
 
 
Billy Shears
Total Posts:  1088
Joined  09-10-2006
 
 
 
22 August 2008 12:25
 
FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  The human nature argument is the shuck that is most often used in debates against anarchists.  The answer is pretty easy:  science knows little about human nature.  We know little about insects let alone humans.  Why humans are good or bad is a debate that continues, in science and in religion.  Probably why religion exists.

Science may be able to tell us little about human nature.  History can tell us a lot. 

FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  The thing that I find funny is the fact that people want a social order, but they don’t seem to understand that any social order would involve actual humans.  What about their human nature?  Wouldn’t the social order chiefs be subject to the same laws?  With power, they may even be more evil.  We see that in the corporate structure, for sure.

Of course the social order chiefs would be subject to some laws.  Sometimes they even are in practice.  You are still refusing to take an honest look at human nature yourself.  If you want to have an honest debate, start by answering the question I posed a while ago: what do you plan to do, in the absence of a social order, about those people who need to be restrained by a social order, because they prey on those weaker than themselves? 

FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  Any social order would be lead my humans, corrupted by power and by hubris.  Better that we have an organic order, lead by humans, in solidarity with each other.

How is such a thing to work in practice.  You have seen, right here on this thread, how bitterly some people disagree with each other over even very minor issues.  What do you think the quarrels will be like over the things that really matter to people, like property, food, distribution of labor, and other things that hit people where they live?  And you expect people just to iron this out amicably and hammer out a well-functioning system on their own?  What on earth makes you think that would ever happen?

What would actually happen, if you tore down the social order, is a period of dog-eat-dog chaos would ensue, and then strong, ambitious men would start to claw their way to the top of the pile, drawing followers to themselves, until in the end, another, probably very authoritarian social order had been established, probably with a large degree of force.

FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  Sure there is group madness, but there is also group solidarity.  The international peace movement is proof of that.

It’s a fringe movement, with essentially no power.  Hardly proof of the effectiveness of your idea. 

FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.  He was democratically elected—several times.

So was Robert Mugabe.  And he was elected again earlier this year, but the election is widely believed to have been fraudulent.  What makes you think Chavez isn’t up the same kinds of tricks?  He’s been gradually muzzling his critics in the Venezuelan media since at least 2006.

There mere fact that a dictator is elected, doesn’t for an instant mean he isn’t a dictator.  I’ve already mentioned Mugabe.  For that matter Hitler and Mussolini were also both elected.  Does that mean they weren’t dictators?

FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  Venezuela leads in popularity polls in that region.  The poor love him, the rich hate him—a good indicator.  lol.

It’s a good indicator that he has an effective propaganda machine, and succeeds in pandering to the poor.  It doesn’t mean his policies are actually helping the poor.  Since he’s destroying Venezuela’s economy with disastrous economic policies, he’s actually doing the opposite.  As Venezuela itself sinks further into poverty, the poor in that country are going to be worse off because of him.

FrankChurch - 22 August 2008 10:28 AM

  You have to go beyond the propaganda media to get a rational view of Chavez.  Sure, he is not a perfect leader, but compared to Bush, he is a peach.

It never ceases to amaze me that Bush, who is going to be out of office in a matter of months, is a wannabe dictator to people like you, but Chavez, who probably has engaged in election fraud to stay in power, and who is definitely using his power to silence political opposition, is not.  The double standards people employ are amazing.

 
 
Keep The Reason
 
Avatar
 
 
Keep The Reason
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  07-08-2007
 
 
 
22 August 2008 12:45
 
Billy Shears - 22 August 2008 04:25 PM

The double standards people employ are amazing.

Good thing there’s laws to reign in the impulse to be violent over disagreements in politics.

 
 
FrankChurch
 
Avatar
 
 
FrankChurch
Total Posts:  26
Joined  21-08-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2008 13:02
 

Where is all this durn evidence about how human nature works only one way, huh?  Where is this amazing, breathtaking science of the mind?  There is none, merely the babblings of libertarians and Ayn Rand parasites.  Human nature, I got your human nature right here. 

  Social science knows little about human nature.  Actually, people have become better.  In the 60’s the military could carpet bomb Vietnam and the people didn’t much care.  Today, you cannot get away with that.  The people would not stand for it.  As culture changes people change.  We have to make a world where people feel better about the world.  Eliminating poverty is a big step in that. 

  Social structures change when people feel better about their world.  Later we can make the structure better. 

———————-

  Social structures take away freedom.  If we want actual freedom, we must have a world where people can control their own lives. 

  ——————-

  Read Mark Weisbrot, he will school you on Hugo Chavez. 

—————-

  Tear down the walls.

 
FrankChurch
 
Avatar
 
 
FrankChurch
Total Posts:  26
Joined  21-08-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2008 13:05
 

Who says people need to be restrained?  You let people truly be free and they will no longer need social restraint. 

  Crime is usually the cause of poverty and neglect.  Get rid of that and you come to a world much more free.