Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conservative? and Chomsky
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 76 of 85 (582050)
09-19-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
09-18-2010 2:16 PM


Leftist
I think we've finally found some common ground.
That's why I asked - when you expressed doubt that Chomsky is widely considered liberal, I found that claim almost impossible to believe.
What I was refering to when I called him a moderate was, in regards to certain issues concerning the US today, Chomsky has opinions that are shared by liberals and conservatives.
However, if I was talking about person X, and gave you those opinions on today's issues, most people would consider person X a moderate since he's on both sides with his opinions. Where as with Chomsky, he remains a liberal.
As I said that's a separate point from whether he actually is liberal but the evidence that he's considered a liberal really is overwhelming.
Absolutely, he's notoriously equated with liberalism because any leftist is already thrown into that label. But here again we're dealing with contemporary use of the word -vs- traditional uses.
In the US "leftist" was wrongfully used to describe the civil rights leaders, anti-war college students, and those that supported the unions. Basically anyone that went against the status quo. But then some how, I guess because these groups are usually liberal, the two words in the US became one. But if you look at an actual leftist government, like that of Hugo Chavez, you'll find their opinions different from US liberals.
So, he believes in government just small enough to radically alter economic conditions for 350 million people.
He believes in a decentralized economy run by trade unions, workers councils, cooperatives, municipalities and communes, and oppose both government and private control of the economy, preferring local control, in which a nation of decentralized regions are united in a confederation.
If you want to call that radically altering economic conditions for 350 million people, then cool. I'm sure many would love to see their economic conditions altered.
He believes in government just small enough to get in the heads of and brainwash individuals who enjoy producing and consuming pornography.
Again with the brainwashing? It has nothing to do with brainwashing, or convincing people to do things differently.
It has to do with individual decisions to change your own destiny when an abundance of opportunitites arise that can present an alternative for you. Most women, I think, would rather have a job than blow someone for money. But when jobs are scarce, school is too expensive and no other opportunities are available, you drop to you knees and swallow someone's load.
Giving someone an alternative to gulping down a load of jizz isn't brainwashing someone.
Anarchy is the most fragile of political systems; it falls apart the instant someone is prepared to use force against another human being.
Absolutely not. There would still be a local police force, and every other law we have now. It's not a free for all, no rules, no law, system.
Maybe we're just getting hung up on the term "liberal", which, for right or wrong, I tend to use as a synonym for "on the left."
Alleluia!!! I think we're good here. Leftist, yes, most certainly.
And I am aware of the fact that many use it as a synonym for liberal, wrongfully so in my opinion, but done so nonetheless.
Oni writes:
Is he a liberal, conservative, or moderate in regards to the questions and issues facing the US today (Tea Party movement, pro-life/choice, military, Obama admin)...?
CS writes:
How about "radical"?
Radical? His opinions about the Tea Party, pro-life/choice, military or Obama admin seem moderate to conservative. In any of the videos I linked he never came across as a radical.
His overall, political views regarding the fututre of humanity are definitely seen as radical, but his opinions on the actual issues I find rather normal. I know lots of people that share those opinions in regards to those specific issues.
Libertarian socialists, being socialists, can't be regarded as "conservative" either in the Rush-Limbaugh/Tea Party sense or the intellectual, Burkean sense. Regardless of how libertarian they may be, socialism can never be reconciled with conservatism.
Here are both my points:
(1) He is not a conservative because he is a libertarian-socialist. He is a conservative and a libertarian-socialist. According to him, and given his extensive knowledge in politics and linguistics, I'll believe he knows what he's talking about.
(2) Libertarian-socialism is, by definition, anarchism, which by definition is communitariansim, which is opposed to classical liberalism.
I would consider the views of Chomsky to not be shared by those who call themselves liberals, likewise they would not be shared by today's conservatives. Thus he is a leftist, anarchist, libertarian socialist. But, he also has a conservative opinion about most of today's issues, an opinion that I don't share with him. I am a lot more liberal when it comes to those issues, however, when we separate those issues with the overall government we find ourselves in, I break away from liberals, and conservatives, and side with libertarian-socilaist and anarchist.
So he is not the most infamous liberal we know of, he may be a leftist, but certainly not a liberal.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2010 2:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2010 12:35 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 85 (582052)
09-19-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by onifre
09-19-2010 11:53 AM


Re: Leftist
What I was refering to when I called him a moderate was, in regards to certain issues concerning the US today, Chomsky has opinions that are shared by liberals and conservatives.
I don't think that's what "moderate" really refers to, and again - if Chomsky is a moderate why don't moderates think he's a moderate? Is that another word that only Chomsky is privy to the "right" definition of?
However, if I was talking about person X, and gave you those opinions on today's issues, most people would consider person X a moderate since he's on both sides with his opinions.
..no, if we were talking about an unknown person, and you described him as an "anarcho-socialist" who wants to dissolve all forms of government and replace them with a new kind of society that has no private property, no medium of exchange, and no weapons, absolutely nobody would consider that person a "moderate" even if liberals are generally opposed to guns and conservatives are generally opposed to pornography, or whatever.
In the US "leftist" was wrongfully used to describe the civil rights leaders, anti-war college students, and those that supported the unions.
I don't know, is that wrong? I'm a leftist, and certainly I'm in favor of expansive civil rights, particularly for racial and sexual minorities; I'm a college student opposed to wars of adventure, like Iraq and Vietnam, and to mismanaged wars like the war in Afghanistan; and I strongly support unions. And I believe that all of those count as "left" positions, and that it's not wrong to describe them as such.
But if you look at an actual leftist government, like that of Hugo Chavez, you'll find their opinions different from US liberals.
I know that the American left isn't very leftist compared to other places. More's the pity, but I don't think that's a qualitative difference or one that should abjure the use of "liberal" or "leftist" in the United States. And it ignores that, in fact, the American people are prone to be substantially more liberal than their government is structured to allow, as I proved in the other thread.
I'm sure many would love to see their economic conditions altered.
No doubt. But to do so by sweeping fiat and a radical restructuring of society isn't particularly "moderate." That's all I'm saying.
It has to do with individual decisions to change your own destiny when an abundance of opportunitites arise that can present an alternative for you. Most women, I think, would rather have a job than blow someone for money.
I guess I don't understand where you're going with this. Poverty-induced prostitution is a vanishingly rare phenomenon in the United States, don't you think? If alternative opportunities don't exist, if there's no such thing as welfare and student financial aid in the US, why are so few American women employed as prostitutes?
And what about the famed "1000 a night" sex workers who pay for upscale Manhattan apartments and brand-name purses? What about the sex worker organizations that lobby for protection of sex workers who want to be sex workers? Is it really your position that they're all being exploited as a result of a lack of opportunity? Even the ones who say they're not being exploited at all? Are you proposing some kind of false consciousness, or what?
That seems like a topic for a new thread, frankly.
There would still be a local police force, and every other law we have now.
Oh, so it's not actually anarchy then.
His opinions about the Tea Party, pro-life/choice, military or Obama admin seem moderate to conservative.
Could you explain? Those positions all seem radical as you've described them.
He is not a conservative because he is a libertarian-socialist. He is a conservative and a libertarian-socialist.
Right, and again and for hopefully the last time, he's not a conservative because he is a libertarian-socialist.
Libertarian-socialism is, by definition, anarchism, which by definition is communitariansim, which is opposed to classical liberalism.
I don't follow this at all. Communitarianism, or collectivism, isn't opposed to classical liberalism; classical liberalism is highly influenced by collectivism and includes a large number of collectivist notions. And collectivism can't be anarchism, because anarchism rejects the notion of a collective that your personal individual interests are expected to be suborned to.
So he is not the most infamous liberal we know of, he may be a leftist, but certainly not a liberal.
I'll agree with "leftist", but I don't think it's possible to be so left that you can't be called a "liberal." Maybe it depends on where you stand? If you're a liberal, you look around and see conservatives to the right and Chomsky to the left. If you're looking at the left from Conservative-town, you see Chomsky standing behind a very large group of liberals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by onifre, posted 09-19-2010 11:53 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 09-19-2010 8:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 78 of 85 (582097)
09-19-2010 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
09-19-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Leftist
I don't think that's what "moderate" really refers to, and again - if Chomsky is a moderate why don't moderates think he's a moderate?
In the other thread we agreed that a moderate was someone who held both conservative and liberal positions, which Chomksy does for certain issues. I'm not saying he is, but it can be argued that he is based on certain criteria.
..no, if we were talking about an unknown person, and you described him as an "anarcho-socialist" who wants to dissolve all forms of government and replace them with a new kind of society that has no private property, no medium of exchange, and no weapons, absolutely nobody would consider that person a "moderate" even if liberals are generally opposed to guns and conservatives are generally opposed to pornography, or whatever.
True, if I had said all that you'd have a point. But I didn't devulge any of that about person X.
I don't know, is that wrong? I'm a leftist, and certainly I'm in favor of expansive civil rights, particularly for racial and sexual minorities; I'm a college student opposed to wars of adventure, like Iraq and Vietnam, and to mismanaged wars like the war in Afghanistan; and I strongly support unions. And I believe that all of those count as "left" positions, and that it's not wrong to describe them as such.
Fair enough, I can agree with that. In that sense, yeah. I was thinking more of the Central and South American leftist governments which is more anti-imperialism and capitalism.
But to do so by sweeping fiat and a radical restructuring of society isn't particularly "moderate." That's all I'm saying.
I've never heard Chomsky suggest a radical undertaking and restructuring of society. He's always advocated for a slow process leading back to classical conservative ideologies of limited government and individual liberties all based on the traditional values of solidarity.
Is that a moderate? I don't know, maybe.
Poverty-induced prostitution is a vanishingly rare phenomenon in the United States, don't you think?
Well we were talking about the porn industry. I don't know if you're right about prostitution, but you may be. However, it is a fact that the porn industry, lead these days by women, is fast on the rise and has become quite powerful.
Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but Chomsky's point was that he found it degrading to women. And he felt that many of them subject themselves to this for lack of an alternative, especially in a society such as ours that objectifies women.
Is it really your position that they're all being exploited as a result of a lack of opportunity?
Well first, this isn't my position. In this matter I disagree with Chomsky. I'm just trying to defend what you accused him of which was brainwashing people. If he's right or wrong about this is a moot point, because I actually agree with what you're saying. We're on the same side. All I'm saying is that Chomsky isn't planning to brainwash people.
Oh, so it's not actually anarchy then.
Right, it's libertarian socialism or social anarchism. That's what differentiates it from the other forms of anarchy, the individual anachist. That's lawlessness, which libertarian socialism is not.
Could you explain? Those positions all seem radical as you've described them.
Well he sympathises with the issues of the Tea Party, as do conservatives. He feels both sides of the pro-choice/life debate make valid points to support their beliefs, which seems like a middle of the road moderate opinion. And he dis-likes Obama's administration and compares it to the past, Bush admin. Which many liberals share this opinion.
So I don't see his opinions on these issues as radical. How are you seeing them as radical?
And collectivism can't be anarchism, because anarchism rejects the notion of a collective that your personal individual interests are expected to be suborned to.
This is how social anarchism s different.
Source
quote:
Social anarchism, socialist anarchism, anarcho-socialism, anarchist socialism or communitarian anarchism (sometimes used interchangeably with libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism or left-anarchism in its terminology) is an umbrella term used to differentiate two broad categories of anarchism, this one being the collectivist, with the other being individualist anarchism.
Social anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality. Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, some forms of libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism and social ecology.
I'll agree with "leftist", but I don't think it's possible to be so left that you can't be called a "liberal."
But when you're a leftist because you're a liberatarian socialist, you will have many opinions and beliefs not shared by liberals, and some that are shared by clasical conservatives such as: limited government and individual liberties all based on the traditional values of solidarity.
But if we agree on leftist, even, if you like, the nations most infamous leftist, we can end on that.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2010 12:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2010 10:40 PM onifre has replied
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2010 12:53 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 85 (582130)
09-19-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by onifre
09-19-2010 8:10 PM


Re: Leftist
In the other thread we agreed that a moderate was someone who held both conservative and liberal positions, which Chomksy does for certain issues.
I think you're playing a word-game with me, Oni. Was that the same thread where you asserted that "holding a conservative position" could include holding no conservative positions at all, but still calling yourself "conservative"?
Moderate means occupying a positions on the political spectrum between "conservative" and "liberal"; Chomsky occupies a position on some of these issues completely orthogonal to the axis entire. And isn't your definition overbroad? Even the liberalist liberal agrees with conservatives on some things - wouldn't that make everybody a "moderate"?
But I didn't devulge any of that about person X.
No, but that's more or less Chomsky's position, isn't it?
I was thinking more of the Central and South American leftist governments which is more anti-imperialism and capitalism.
The Latin socialist ones, you mean.
Is that a moderate? I don't know, maybe.
I just don't see how it can be.
Well we were talking about the porn industry.
Oh I thought we were talking about prostitution. I apologize, but I think my points still apply; poverty-based work in porn is probably even more of a vanishingly rare phenomenon given the barriers to entry that exist for getting into the business. I think it's fair to say that most people working in porn are doing it because they chose to, not because they couldn't afford to go to school. The median salary for a female porn actress is about $1500 per day of work.
Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but Chomsky's point was that he found it degrading to women.
That's all very well and good, but isn't the question whether or not the porn actors find it degrading?
He feels both sides of the pro-choice/life debate make valid points to support their beliefs, which seems like a middle of the road moderate opinion.
The moderate position in the abortion debate is the pro-choice position, because it's the compromise between no abortions for anybody and mandated abortions for everybody: people can only have the abortions they want. Pro-choice. What's the "moderate" compromise between telling women what they can do with their bodies and not telling them what they can do with their bodies? Chomsky's position isn't as radical as the anti-abortion camp, but it's radical nonetheless - and certainly not libertarian in any way.
But if we agree on leftist, even, if you like, the nations most infamous leftist, we can end on that.
Sounds good to me. If you'd like to respond to any of the positions I've made above, go ahead and open a new thread. Otherwise I won't read anything into a non-reply except disinterest. (Can't make that not sound assholish, but what I'm trying to say is, if you don't want to wrangle on abortion or sex work right now, that's totally cool and I promise not to attack you with that in the future. You dig?)
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 09-19-2010 8:10 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by onifre, posted 09-20-2010 4:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 85 (582193)
09-20-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
09-17-2010 5:10 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
Straggler writes:
Sounds like something Chomsky might say to describe his anti-statist use of the term "conservative" doesn't it?
Crash writes:
I've not yet seen any evidence that Chomsky is "anti-statist" except perhaps in name-only.
Even if true (which I don't think it is) this has no bearing on his use of the term "conservative" as being compatible with the anti-statist use of the same term being used by Cameron does it?
Even if Cameron in practise does the complete opposite to his conservative anti-statist rhetoric it doesn't suddenly change the meaning of the words he used when politically pontificating does it?
It simply means he lied.
So are you calling Chomsky a liar because you accept the use of the term as used by him to be a legitimate definition of "conservative" (i.e. essentially anti-statist) but don't think his actions match that description?
Or are you still accusing him of redefining the word conservative?
Which is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2010 5:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 85 (582206)
09-20-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
09-18-2010 2:03 PM


Liberal
Crash writes:
No, it's the fact that he's a socialist that makes him a liberal.
WTF? So now you think socialism and liberalism are intrinsically entwined?
Are all socialists liberals? Are all liberals socialists? Are you now obtaining your definitions from Fox news?
What about classical liberalism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2010 2:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 82 of 85 (582229)
09-20-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by onifre
09-19-2010 8:10 PM


Re: Leftist
Oni writes:
In the other thread we agreed that a moderate was someone who held both conservative and liberal positions, which Chomksy does for certain issues. I'm not saying he is, but it can be argued that he is based on certain criteria.
Calling Chomsky a "moderate" is a bit misleading. He has a rather eclectic and unusual mixture of political beliefs that defy a lot of current conventions regarding what is or is not considered to be politically on the "left" or "right".
But the political views he holds seem to be held strongly, are advocated vociferously and passionately and are often at the more extreme end of the spectrum in terms of wider or mass opinion.
His views are not really "moderate" so much as simply defying of current conventions and straddling a variety of descriptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 09-19-2010 8:10 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 09-20-2010 4:23 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 83 of 85 (582267)
09-20-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Straggler
09-20-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Leftist
Calling Chomsky a "moderate" is a bit misleading.
This point that I was trying to make, after re-reading it, does seem a bit confusing. I meant no more than to suggest that someone who holds sympathy for the Tea Party, admits that both sides of the pro-life/choice debate make good points, and doesn't care for Obama's admin, may be considered by many as a moderate.
I agree with the rest of what you posted.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2010 12:53 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 84 of 85 (582272)
09-20-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
09-19-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Leftist
Was that the same thread where you asserted that "holding a conservative position" could include holding no conservative positions at all, but still calling yourself "conservative"?
Is that what you thought I was trying to say?
All I said in that thread was that calling yourself a conservative is a position, it's a declaration. As would be calling yourself a Nazi. You're declaring something about yourself. Without delving further into your position I would be satisfied in you calling yourself a Nazi, as would I if you called yourself a conservative.
wouldn't that make everybody a "moderate"?
I think when asked, most Americans would be moderates. Not memebers of the "Moderate Party," don't confuse one with the other.
That's all very well and good, but isn't the question whether or not the porn actors find it degrading?
There is an inherent quality about porn that is sexist and degrading to women, and objectifies them. Whether they find it degrading or not is besides the point. Many slaves probably saw nothing wrong with being someone's slave, especially those who were treated fairly well. I think Chomsky is making this same point for porn.
Chomsky's position isn't as radical as the anti-abortion camp, but it's radical nonetheless - and certainly not libertarian in any way.
Well Chomsky is pro-choice, the only thing is he saw the argument from the pro-lifers, when viewed in isolation, as some-what legit. Life is definitely sacred. The taking of a life is wrong. Those two values are legit. But Chomsky is himself pro-choice.
* No need for a new thread, I think I'm good with ending it here.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2010 10:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 85 of 85 (582311)
09-20-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by lfen
09-18-2010 1:57 AM


take your time, no worries
As to tribalism and genocide. I realize there are so many possibilities. Are you thinking of modern middle eastern politics? Rwanda? New Guinea? Maori? Warfare seems much more common than genocide. As I am in the middle of a move I just don't have time to check this out. I think it was Jared Diamond in Collapse who wrote a perceptive analysis of the Rwanda genocide. But I could have read it else where.
Tribalism breeds ethnocetricity (if that is a word, if not i hope you catch my drift). This allows genocide because you are "the people" (what most native peoples name for themselves is), and you enemy is not. I was commenting more on an abstract in general of tribalistic societies, not a specific one, as you have not been specific yourself except for the Amish, and Mennonites.
I usderstand if you are busy, just respond when you have time, and I'll get back to you then, take your time, we can debate as long as the thread is open and if it is not I would gladly start a new thread for us to debate this, which has been interesting IMO so far.
I am a fan of Jared Diamond, and read some of his books in college while pursuing my History Degree.
I believe collectivism refers to a modern state. Tribalism is on a much smaller and more personal scale. I don't think collectivism is the same thing at all. I apologize again for finding myself in a situation where I can't adequately research and annotate my views except in general terms. It is one thing if I know you or know some one who knows you versus decisions being made by someone who doesn't know me at all.
I just feel like you described collectivism and called it tribalism. and its really no big deal take your time, move, and get back to this later.
Casinos are a new development that emerged in trying to deal with the dominant culture. The variety and diversity of Native American tribal history is more than I have time to deal with now. Another, I know it is general, reference is Michel Foucault's analysis of the modern state. I will also cite Wandering God: A Study in Nomadic Spirituality by Morris Berman. But I've run out of time again.
well of course, Native american culture streatches from Siberia to Greenland to Tierra Del fuego from Arctic to Antarctic and everything in between, of course there is going to be a lot of diversity. In this diversity you should realize that putting them all into the tribalsim umbrela is not really going to work that well though. I would love to see some footnotes of Wandering God, or see what it is about, because there is a huge distinction between nomadic pastoralists amd nomadic hunter gatherers (Fulani and Hadza).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 09-18-2010 1:57 AM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024