What do you guys think about Noam Chomsky and Libertarian Socialism?

[Droopy]

Here's a link giving a short explanation for libertarian socialism if you are unfamiliar with it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Here's a link about Noam Chomsky if you are unfamiliar with him http://www.chomsky.info/

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. That's kind of a nice phrase for 'anarchist.' When I found out about that I was disappointed because I'd always thought of anarchism as an impossible political system and it seemed to me that a guy as smart as Chomsky would advocate something more practical. Now I don't know. According to Chomsky, anarchism works in small groups and was working in Spain during the Spanish Revolution until they were squashed by military power. According to Chomsky, libertarian socialism is the only system in which people are totally free.

And as far as freedom is concerned I can see how most of the people in this country are limited in some way. In America, money equals freedom. Since most people aren't rich in this country they are involved in what lefties like to call wage slavery. I am not rich and believe me there are times when I do feel like a slave. I am not truly free and equal to other people in this society. I am subordinate to people who have more money than me; I am subordinate to my bosses at work; I am subordinate to the large international corporation that I work for; I am subordinate to law enforcement; I am subordinate to politicians.

I love Chomsky and I love the work that he has done. When I hear him speak I hear truth ringing loud and clear. But what do you make of this libertarian socialist stuff? Me? I don't know. It's going to require some more investigation.

[Writer]

1. Money does NOT equal freedom, and therein lays the problem with Chomsky.

While many of Chomsky's observations of corporate power in governance are spot on, he introduced the language of money to the liberal cause, and in doing so fallaciously led many liberals to believe that the people always will be subservient to the wealthy. Yet never has a major social movement - the Civil Rights movement, for instance - needed EXCESSIVE MONEY to succeed. And that has been the case in America all the way back to the Revolution.

I personally detest Chomsky. As someone who has studied media vigorously, for instance, I find his view on American socioeconomy to be condescending and intellectually repugnant. He has set up the liberal cause to fail always - ALWAYS, now - because we don't have as much money as "THEY" do. His view on the corporate influence on American news media is simplistic. He and Ben Bagdikian have cornered liberal views of the media into a slippery slope fallacy that somehow - because a particular company owns a particular news organization, that a) that news organization's politics will skew in the corporation's direction, and b) that direction will always be a CONSERVATIVE one.

And here is why that is poor logic. His "brilliant" propaganda model also simplistically addresses how these apparent "conservative" views will bend the masses to the will of the powerful. Here's the problem: not everyone is susceptible to media messages in the same way. Each member of the news audience brings his or her own experiences to the media he or she consumes. In synthesis, not everyone will accept "the message" in the same way or at the same time. Even the most overt attempts at propaganda won't take root if we are not fertile soil. Ever wonder why Fox News' ratings have DROPPED as Bush's popularity has, as well? Propaganda starts with a willing public.

I could go on about Chomsky. Brilliant man, simplistic logic. And on top of that, no real solutions... unless we adopt socialism, I suppose.

:thumbsdown: to Chomsky.

[Droopy]

2. Chomsky is not a liberal

At least not in the Democratic sense of the word. He has said that the New York Times has a "liberal" bias. In his view both Democrats and the Republicans have got it wrong.

The money thing I mentioned in my original post is my words. Are they the same as Chomsky's?

[Writer]

5. No, he most certainly is not a liberal.

However, many liberals look up to his writing as something akin to biblical. I think he has done more to hurt the liberal movement in America than... well, many Republicans. He has tied our hands and made us into consummate victims.

The money issue is the basis of Chomsky's approach toward American socioeconomy. If you read "Manufacturing Consent," his thesis is essentially this: Corporations operate through money. Money is a conservative ideal. Therefore, corporations will always promote conservative causes through the media they own.

WRONG. Corporations will promote causes that will earn them more money, whether they be conservative, liberal, (or MOST likely) have no political leaning at all.

I truly HATE Chomsky. :mad:

[enigmatic]

3. Read about Tommy Douglas, Droopy

He's a Hero of mine:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-74-851/people/tommy_douglas/

http://www.weyburnreview.com/tommydouglas/welcome.html

http://www.tommydouglas.ca/

I call myself a Socialist today because of Tommy; one of my great regrets in life was to not cast a vote for him.

He might be more to your liking...

[Droopy]

4. Thanks for the links, enigmatic

I'll check him out.