Conservative? and Chomsky

Wud up, it's Friday so enjoy those Fosters. It'll take me a few to construct something coherent as it requires me to go through a bit of history before we can start to understand the contemporary use and reasons for it. I'll wake 'n bake tomorrow morning and put together something for us to begin the debate. It is and interesting phenomenon though and fun to explore. If you don't dispute that it is being used with a specific political agenda, then it follows that those who are using it play an active role in molding it. I'll try to present the best possible argument to support that.- Oni

Actually Cameron cites Benjamin Disraeli as his primary inspiration as a "conservative". Sounds like something Chomsky might say to describe his anti-statist use of the term "conservative" doesn't it?Would Cameron ever say this? Is he anti-government to this extent? No - Of course not. But when engaged in eulogistic rhetoric about the big society and the small state these are the sort of vague historical references he likes to allude to.

That's fine; Ben Disraeli was certainly a conservative in the Burkean mold. I've not yet seen any evidence that Chomsky is "anti-statist" except perhaps in name-only. How does he intend to enact socialism without a state? How does he intend to preserve anarchy without organization?How does he intend to prevent people from making and viewing pornography, engaging in prostitution, or owning guns if not via the "state"?

source

quote:

---

According to conservative historians, Richard Hooker was the founding father of conservatism

---

Wow, the balls on you! When you start to debate Straggler is when you decided to bring up Burke. But all you do is say Chomsky and Burke would disagree, but you provide no evidence.Lets see what you say: source

quote:

---

But it was not until Edmund Burke's polemic Reflections on the Revolution in France that conservatism gained its most influential statement of views.

​

Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke, who argued so forcefully against the French Revolution, also sympathised with some of the aims of the American Revolution. This classical conservative tradition often insists that conservatism has no ideology, in the sense of a utopian programme, with some form of master plan.

---

Seems like the absurd utopian fantasy is how Burke's conservatism was described too... Really??? I thought you were talking about conservatism "according to the English language circa 2010"...? Now it's according to Burke? Let me know when you want to stop hopping around, froggy. I've heard the term used before, vaguely on the news. When I heard it mentioned it was in reference to the military and aggressive attacks. No I'm not fucking kidding. If you're going to make a stupid comment that conservatives are opposed to the separation of church and state, then I'm going to ask you for evidence. If you don't have any then say "I don't have any," but don't act like a bitch about it if you do. Just present it.Thomas Jefferson came up with the term and he was also an advocate for republicanism - later spawning the quite conservative Republican Party. Yup, you're right. Was that so hard to say? Sure they have, you're just too stubborn to see it or admit to it.* Liberals are not opposed to capitalism, Chomsky is. In this sense he is neither liberal or conservative.* The separation of church and state was advocated by the founding fathers, specifically Jefferson, who was a conservative. So, if Chomsky supports the separation of church and state, he would be siding with tradition US conservatism.* Military adventurism? Ehh. The Obama admin, nor the Clinton admin, showed any signs of not being aggressive with the military. In fact, the defense budget is higher with Obama than with Bush.Conclusion: They have failed. Well, according to the English language circa 2010 (your mantra early on) conservatives are Tea Party folk who don't support the liberal party, yes?Now I agree that this has nothing to do with the original definition of the word, but this is what you've been advocating, the modern use of the word.In your own words: "it's an obstacle to communication with people who use terms according to their modern, present meaning."Oh right, but now it's Burke's definition that you like... I tell you what, first YOU show me how Burke supported all of those positions, then we'll move on to Chomsky. You don't get to make wild ass assertions, evidence, as you well know, is needed in a debate.I don't like your constant shifting from position to position. First it was the modern definition, now it's Burke's definition. You obviously can't be trusted to stick to one point.And again, stop showing me how he's not a conservative and support your ridiculous claim that he is a liberal, as in, does he support liberal ideologies.Just because he's not a conservative, not that I think he is not but lets pretend you're right, that doesn't automatically make him the most infamous liberal on the planet. I have said he is at least a moderate, holding both liberal and conservative ideologies.- Oni

---

"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."

Sure you have, you're just too stubborn to see it.

quote:

---

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism is a group of political philosophies which promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production.

---

In Chomsky's own words:

quote:

---

Some libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky, are willing to use the powers of the state until it can be overthrown; he says:

​

"There is no conflict. You should use whatever methods are available to you. There is no conflict between trying to overthrow the state and using the means that are provided in a partially democratic society, the means that have been developed through popular struggles over centuries."

---

It's called free association, or community of freely associated individuals, as Marx described it.

quote:

---

In the anarchist, communist and socialist sense, free association is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority in a society that had abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

---

Are you even in this debate? He would NEVER prevent people from doing anything of the sort. As he says, you change the conditions that drive people to do such things and that's how you eliminate the problem. NOT by submission to authority, the very thing he's trying to get rid of! For fuck sakes!- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."

I was a conservative for a decade and I never once heard of "Richard Hooker" in connection with conservatism. Check out Conservapedia's entry on conservatism - useful, admittedly, only as a reference to how conservatives view their own history and you'll not see "Richard Hooker" mentioned even once, but Burke features prominently.

quote:

---

" Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by Edmund Burke, the founder of British conservatism, in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)).

---

And once again you've misquoted your source, it actually reads:

quote:

---

According to conservative historians, Richard Hooker was the founding father of conservatism, the Marquess of Halifax is commended for his pragmatism, David Hume is commended for his conservative mistrust of rationalism in politics, and Edmund Burke is considered the leading early theorist...Edmund Burke was the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and official pamphlateer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig Party.[13] Together with the Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United Kingdom.

---

As you can see, I'm not talking out of my ass, here. Burke, and later Oakeshott, are the intellectual fathers of conservatism. What am I supposed to do, dig up Burke and ask him? Come on. It's already been established that Chomsky is a socialist, which can't be reconciled with the conservatism of Burke. Another instance where I'm forced to wonder if you even read your quoted material. Did you just see the words "utopian programme" and "conservatism" and run with it? Did you not notice that you quoted your source saying that conservatism has no utopian program? It's still according to Burke. Burke and Oakeshott are the intellectual fathers of conservatism - here, over there, everywhere. So if you know what it means, why did you erroneously interpret it as "support for the military"? Again, it's a minor point, we can drop it whenever you like - but it's just another example of your incredible personal dishonesty in these exchanges. I don't get it, I guess. I don't understand the things you choose to lie about, Oni. You're involved in a debate about the separation of church and state with a conservative in another thread, and in this one, you're asking me if conservatives oppose the separation of church and state?I'm not sure what to say to that kind of absurd, stupid dishonesty except, again, are you fucking kidding me? But conservatives are not opposed to capitalism. They're opposed to the opposition to capitalism.Ergo, Chomsky can't be a conservative, because he opposed capitalism. Oh, come the fuck on! Now Jefferson is a conservative?At this point, Oni, who's not conservative to you? Michael Moore? May as well be Rush Limbaugh. Saul Alinsky? Same as a teabagger. Nanci Pelosi? Ann Coulter in a better pantsuit.Now you're just being totally retarded. Yeah? How many wars did Obama start? Be specific. Uh, no, I've never said that. I don't like your constant dishonesty and misrepresentation, Oni. I don't like your stupid, pointless lies. Like when you accuse me of shifting the definitions: Burke's conservatism is the modern definition. That's the point - the conservatism you and Chomsky think is just modern propaganda and statism predates the both of you by hundreds of years. He wants to overturn the government, Oni. How is that moderate? Stop being so ridiculously dishonest.

Yeah?How's that going to work when all of a sudden no one wants to freely associate? How's that going to work when someone wants to forcibly associate?How do you preserve a stateless society without a state? Oh, I see - so Chomsky believes in a government just small enough to get in our heads and brainwash us.

Funny I thought this posted before, but I guess maintenance ate it. Chomsky isn't using the "traditional" form of the word, though; he's using an ideosyncratic definition to appropriate positive connotations of "conservative" to his socialist-libertarian beliefs.Chomsky's the propagandist, in other words. Maybe everybody but you is wrong, but are you really saying that you don't think anybody considers Noam Chomsky a liberal? Really? Googling "Noam Chomsky liberal" produces half a million pages, the very first one referring to "radical militant leftist Noam Chomsky". The next textual link refers to him as a "well-respected liberal visionary." The next two links are reviews of his books; the link immediately after that refers to Chomsky as a "limousine liberal." Another link is an except from a book supposedly about "liberal hypocrisy" that mentions Chomsky as just such a hypocrite.Look, this is all a very separate conversation than whether or not he is a liberal, but are you really arguing that Chomsky isn't viewed to be a liberal? You're just being absurd, at that point. Why don't moderates, then, consider Chomsky a moderate? (Doesn't game recognize game?) Or is that another term that only Chomsky is privy to the "true" definition of?And can you explain how someone who wants to dismantle the entire government and replace it with a socialist, libertarian paradise (except that you can't be allowed to own guns or look at porn - say, how does he intend to enforce those strictures, anyway? Suddenly his government doesn't look so small, does it?) is best described as "moderate"? Don't you think being radically opposed to both of the primary ideologies in the United States - not just in the middle, but completely orthogonal - is immediately disqualifying?

I suppose it came across as an implication but I don't think it is conscious and deliberate though at one time it may have been. I don't know how it originated and I wish I had the time to research Edmund Burke and what followed as I think there may be something in that history.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.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.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.Some Amish may be rich but taxation is resulting on many leaving the USA for Latin America.

They are, but even your own link suggests Hooker as the founding father of conservatism. But of course, I recognize Burke as a leading figure in early conservatism. He's libertarian socialist, and yes there are conservatives in that political philosophy. But classical conservatives, not the way it is definied in the US. No, how I read it is that classical conservatism often insists that conservatism has no ideology, which I've heard before. I also favor that opinion. Are you suggesting that conservatism in the US is the same as classical conservatism that Burke advocated? Well I didn't mean it as support for the military and the troops, I mean it as support for the militrary industrial complex. That's what I thought it meant. That's the whole fucking point! They are NOT conservatives in a classical sense, they have re-defined the word. The US conservatives that support big government are NOT classical conservatives. The US conservatives that support authoritarianism are NOT classical conservatives. I am in a debate in another thread with a dude that calls himself a conservative, and he's right by US standards, but not by classical Burke-conservatism. But it doesn't make him a fucking liberal, do you follow that? I even stated that in what you quoted. How is him opposing capitalism make him a liberal? That's the question. Um, in the classical sense, yes. He was. He was also the founding father of republicanism.Now by today's definition, no, he is not. But again, that is why today's definition of the word means something different that what it used to mean. Do you think starting a war is the only way you can be considered aggressive with the military? Really? These big government, authoritarian neo-conservative like Reagan and Bush are considered classical conservatives? Really? Because that has to be the dumbest shit you have said in this thread. Fucking Christ! You can't be this fucking boneheaded. I don't even know how to deal with this statement. We were talking about his opinion on one isse, where it seemed like he approached his opinion with a more moderate perspective, and you now shift it to him not being a moderate because he wants to overturn the government. WOW!!!- Oni

See this is the shaddy ass shit you do when debating. You ask a question, get an answer, then shift your entire argument because you were unhappy with the reply you got.You asked: So I, thinking, "Oh that's easy, Chomsky has already suggested how and it is in fact part of his libertarian socialist political movement. It's called free association."There, question answered.But instead of saying, "Well I don't think it'll work but ok, that's how he suggests doing it without the state, thanks for the answer," you go into crap about how he intends to preserve it. Well, who gives a shit. If it doesn't work it doesn't work, but you asked how he intended to do it.You do that shit all the time. You can't get an answer and be satisfied, you have to shift everything just to save face. What? You have lost it, dude!- Oni

Yeah I noticed that. I went back to reply to it and it was gone. C'mon crash, when did I ever say no body consders him liberal?Here's my quote from the other thread, which is how this all started:

quote:

---

Noam Chomsky, an admitted (classical) Libertarian also considers himself a conservative. But certainly not like the conservatives of today. In fact, many today would consider him a liberal, which he most certainly is not.

---

And here we are, debating the very thing I knew you and many others would think. Chomsky is not suggesting an authoritarian system that doesn't "allow" things, that's what we live in now. What his system would do is change conditions so that people wouldn't have to humilate themselves by prostituting, or doing pornography. You are allowed to do it, but if you could instead be a lawyer or a doctor, you may opt out of it. Not saying that lawyers or doctors haven't quit their jobs to become porn stars, lord knows I'd love to myself. But this is meant more for the teenage runaway, the girl who can't afford college, those who come from poverty, etc.In la madre patria de Cuba there are many prostitutes, and this as a Cuban offends me and is a source of embarrassment. It hurts me to know that conditions in Cuba are so bad that there are 14-15 year old prostitutes on the streets just trying to get enough money to eat, to help feed their family. But this is the effects of authoritarianism, oppression and tyranny.But the point in Cuba, and what Chomsky's Libertarian socialist movement would suggest, is NOT to make prostitution illegal, in fact, that would be the worse thing to do - at least in the case where she is prostituting, herself and her family get to eat - no, the point is to create means to lift people out of this. To create opportinities so that they don't have to see prostitution as an option. This is acheived, not through authoritarian government laws, but through compasion and solidarity, the very foundation of the Libertarian-socialist movement. Oh most definitely, in that sense he would be nothing at all; not liberal, conservative or moderate. But we were going through specific issues, such as his stance on capitalism, etc.But I agree, his over all libertarian socialist ideologies are not what we would define as conservative, liberal or moderate in the contemporary sense. Which is totally ok with me, so long as you don't continue to suggest that he is a liberal.There are two questions here,(1) 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)...?(2) Is the libertarian socialist movement a conservative movement?Answer's I favor:(1) Overall I would see him more as a moderate, since he holds both liberal and conservative positions on the issues.(2) In the classical sense of small government involvement, yes, he would lean more toward classical conservatism.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Not when I looked. A word search for "Hooker" returned zero results. It's defined in the US according to Burke and Oakeshott (and obviously others, not exclusively Oakeshott.) It's the classical conservatism that I've been talking about the whole time, which is what informs modern conservatism.You're talking about a definition of conservatism that begins and ends with Chomsky. He's the one re-defining terms. Then why did you ask me if "Obama supports the military"? But they haven't. Chomsky has, so that he can style himself "the only conservative in the US" despite being one of the country's most notorious liberals. No, it's the fact that he's a socialist that makes him a liberal.Do you follow that? It's only what I've been saying from the beginning. No, Oni, he's not in any sense. Jefferson was a revolutionary. Conservatives at the time opposed the revolution. Jefferson was a classical liberal, a major figure of the Enlightenment. Burke opposed Enlightenement values.Burke and Jefferson were like opposite sides of a coin. Jefferson was a classical liberal not a classical conservative. Stop being ridiculous. What issue? You never said he was moderate about any issue; you said he was "a moderate." But by definition a moderate is not someone who wants to overthrow the government. That's a "radical", which is why Chomsky is so frequently referred to as a "radical leftist."

And this is just more of your classic dishonesty, where as you lose the debate you demand evidence (but refuse to look at it), make false accusations against your opponents, and in general substitute obstinacy for intellectual engagement. If his intentions result in a larger state, inescapably, then I'm entitled to describe him as "anti-statist in name only", as I did.Sorry if you don't like it, but - no, actually not very sorry, at this point. You opened this thread to target me. You bumped it at me. If you find it frustrating to debate me, you may stop at any time.But you're the one who called this down on yourself. I was going to let it go, remember?

In the post I replied to. That's why I asked - when you expressed doubt that Chomsky is widely considered liberal, I found that claim almost impossible to believe. I mean, it's such a stupid thing to be skeptical about, yet here you are:

quote:

---

Any one else would have been considered a conservative and at the very least a moderate, yet Crash stubbornly holds that he is the most infamous liberal known to mankind.

---

Now, I never said "known to mankind", of course, but I just don't see how it can be argued that Chomsky is notorious for liberalism. 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. So, he believes in government just small enough to radically alter economic conditions for 350 million people. He believes in government just small enough to get in the heads of and brainwash individuals who enjoy producing and consuming pornography.And, of course, he's either a total idiot for not thinking about it, or he believes in government just small enough to seize all guns and the means of their manufacture, otherwise how does he prevent "unfree association"?Anarchy is the most fragile of political systems; it falls apart the instant someone is prepared to use force against another human being. Chomsky believes in a government just small enough to either restrain all humans to prevent their use of force, or to brainwash all humans so that they don't want to. 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."Can we agree that he's "leftist"? That being socialist puts him on "the left", even if he's very much to the left of the left? How about "radical"? 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.