Noam Chomsky Forum

Noam Chomsky

Forum

Chomsky's fundamental belief seems to be that the state, and all the undemocratic institutions of society must be destroyed. In their place, new, democratic institutions should be built.

One cannot help but notice that Chomsky makes two assumptions. The first is that today's society, with all of its complexities can actually be run democratically. His second assumption is that human nature is inherently good.

I question the validity of those two assumptions. It seems to me impossible to destroy, or reverse a historical development that is as powerful as the creation of the state and the corresponding economic institutions of society.

Secondly, let us not forget that slavery (and then, discrimination) was a popular institution among a significant segment of American society until relatively recently. Moreover, ethnic conflicts (although usually instigated by political elites) tend to become 'popular' once the flames have been sparked. Thus, I seriously question Chomsky's assumption that when the majority is allowed to do as it wills, the result will always be better than if the decision was made by any form of elite.

>>By Raja Abu Hassan (Monday, 2 Jun 2003 02:39)

Hello Raja Abu Hassan,

I think the first belief is incorrect, insofar as Chomsky believes the state can be run democratically. As he points out, it is not the government running the state. The corporations are running the state, and the government is simply the puppet the corporations want to the public view. While altering and removing power from a ruling class can be daunting, in fact, can appear impossible, it is not so. Challenging, yes. Dangerous, yes. But there are many examples throughout history when a leading power either evolved into something different or was destroyed. One of them is removing the institution of slavery, an example you brought up.

I also wish to address your comments about human nature. A group of people can indeed be ignorant and dangerous when they are not fed, clothed, and educated properly, which, of course, makes them vulnerable to manipulation by a governing body. However, Chomsky does point out that education is one of the first steps in empowering a people. This is not lost on our current regime. (Observe the financial cuts from public schools.) It is not so much that Chomsky believes the public should be thrown into mass chaos as much as it demonstrates that he has specific steps in mind as to how to reach a level of mutual cooperation among people.

>>By redcatdave (Saturday, 7 Jun 2003 08:07)

I'm curious to know if any here have read David Horowitz's The Anti-Chomsky Reader and what they make of it. A good review would be helpful.

TCRNews.com

>>By SteveTCR (Wednesday, 4 Aug 2004 17:40)

You can smell Chomsky's belief in 'cooperative' or 'group think' philosophy without even reading a word of his political expression. Look at his work that introduced him to the world...The linguistic philosophy supposes a 'universal grammar' imbedded in all human minds, collecting us all under the unification of the one thing that seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom; Language! None of this is really objectionable, as he has good evidence for this position, but where he strays from sound reason is his reluctance to let natural selection be the force or cause of language. He want's to go in the direction of a 'hopeful monster,' a term that refers to a giant leap in 'design space' to account for our use of language. I love Noam because he tries hare and has a good heart. The danger is clear, however...Too many people accept Noam on political grounds and in turn accept his scientific positions because his character is admirable.

>>By Hume Ungus (Wednesday, 1 Jun 2005 23:39)

One fact you have to understand then he makes sense.......HE IS A COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>By Spooner (Sunday, 3 Jul 2005 03:18)

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
ADJECTIVE - ADJECTIVE - NOUN - VERB - ADVERB
Brilliant sense =)

>>By peachbeach (Tuesday, 5 Jul 2005 01:34)

for the record chomsky was critical of the communists.
he's more of an anarchist..

>>By voice of reason (Friday, 7 Oct 2005 17:36)

Yes, I find Chomsky closer to anarchism than communism as well. I am not sure that is really a good fit, but the label of communist seems to come from his quest for a common good and his ability to point out the failure of integrity in corporations and their dupe, American government.

As for not beeliving his premise. I think it is fair to allow Chomsky his ideal as a grounded point of departure to discuss his beliefs. We are, after all, in reading Chomsky, or as Chomsky himself, doing battle with orthodoxy while creating our own new absolutes. Objectivity is impossible in my estimation.

Al

>>By Al C (Wednesday, 12 Oct 2005 12:30)

The discussion board is currently closed.