[besson3c]

I've been watching the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" with Noam Chomsky since I've long been interested in learning more about him. The entire film is available for free on Hulu.

While I don't think I agree with Chomsky's political vision, he makes many observations which I do agree with. I recommend that everybody check this film out. Even if you disagree with all of it, Chomsky will definitely make you think, and we need more of this sort of encouragement to make our Democracy (or any other democracy) work!

For the purpose of this thread I will highlight some of the interesting observations made within this film, my own paraphrasing:


- The state of this and any other country has and always will be a violent one - either violent in its militancy or in its effect on the world. While the US is the freest nation on Earth, we need to be cognizant of the tools the state will use to get what it wants, namely propaganda, rhetoric, etc. in order to confront this "violence"

- Political dissent can lead to instability, but without dissent and debate our government will function more like a totalitarian government that does what it wants. The state does not welcome dissent.

- Because of this, the government will attempt to "manufacture" consent to justify its actions. This manufacturing comes in the form of withholding information, micromanaging their message and the information we have access to, etc.

- The mass media is also used as a tool to perpetuate this manufacturing of consent via their subservience, interest in attracting advertisers, and programming format.

- Manufactured narratives (often simple ones) control our thoughts and perceptions of what our government is doing. There is rarely the time and venue for proper debate in our world of sound bytes and distractions (many of which are perpetuated by the mass media)

- While some people believe that Chomsky thinks that the media and government work hand-in-hand in a conspiratorial fashion, Chomsky is merely observing all of this just like a scientist would. In short, the sum of all of this is that we are generally ignorant as to what our government does and what goes on in the world, and that it takes a tremendous amount of work and effort to combat this, let alone change it.


I happen to think that having a state that we believe to be mostly benevolent is a comforting thing. If we were to be flooded with images of dead bodies coming in from Vietnam, Cambodia/E. Timor, Darfur, Iraq, etc. our society would be in a constant state of unrest. Chomsky is one of the leading intellectuals in the world, but he is also largely misunderstood, I think.

At least in this documentary, he was not encouraging violent actions, or the sorts of sabotage that one might think of when they think of anarchism. He is promoting intellectualism and combating the state in non-violent means. Still, I think that there is a certain danger in all of this when Chomksy's beliefs can be twisted and manipulated into justifying violent actions.

I have more thoughts and opinions about Chomsky himself and his documentary, but first of all, let me make it clear that I'm not necessarily advocating for all of Chomsky's teachings (especially since this documentary has been pretty much my sole introduction to them), nor am I saying that each of these positions are mine. Can we leave out Chomsky and besson3c attacks out of this thread and try to focus on his actual observations? Wipe all of the usual left/right sorts of diatribes and arguments from your slate please, Chomsky is neither.

What I will say is that us sane, rational types ought to entertain what he has to say with an open mind, as some of his observations are quite intriguing, I think valid and useful, and if nothing more mentally stimulating. I'm still digesting all of this so this is all tentative in my own mind.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

While the US is the freest nation on Earth

There's one of those manufactured narratives he mentions.

[besson3c]

Well, this movie was also done in 1992...

[lpkmckenna]

I've always found it hard to take Chomsky seriously since he wrote off the reports of mass atrocities in Cambodia as a CIA propaganda, and never recanted it.

It was years ago that I saw MC, but I remember it as "media companies are capitalist institutions, ergo they can't effectively report on political or economic failures in capitalist nations."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've always found it hard to take Chomsky seriously since he wrote off the reports of mass atrocities in Cambodia as a CIA propaganda, and never recanted it.

Where did you get that from? There are all sorts of acknowledgements of our involvement here: The Cynical Farce about Cambodia, by Noam Chomsky (Dissent)

It was years ago that I saw MC, but I remember it as "media companies are capitalist institutions, ergo they can't effectively report on political or economic failures in capitalist nations."

That and both the media and government are invested in keeping the public distracted. The media so that they can sell more of what they make, and the government so that while we are so distracted they can do what they wish.

[besson3c]

No other people who find some of Chomsky's observations interesting or at least conversation-worthy?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No other people who find some of Chomsky's observations interesting or at least conversation-worthy?

I used to, when I was in college. Then I looked into them a little more and realized that he was pretty much a tool of the socialist Left who was unwilling to concede the end of the Cold War.

As for propaganda, though, I'm sure he's an expert. Also, when it comes to subverting the intellect of a culture, I'm sure he's an expert there too. So the guy isn't a total loser.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I used to, when I was in college. Then I looked into them a little more and realized that he was pretty much a tool of the socialist Left who was unwilling to concede the end of the Cold War.

As for propaganda, though, I'm sure he's an expert. Also, when it comes to subverting the intellect of a culture, I'm sure he's an expert there too. So the guy isn't a total loser.

I can't do much in the way of replying to your verdict here without knowing what you base all of this on. Please make your case so that we have something to discuss...

Unless you really think that reducing a complicated man's life work down into a simple narrative like this is sufficient?

[torsoboy]

I watched the show for about 45 minutes, then got too bored and had to work on other stuff while listening to it. Then after a little less than 2 hours, I gave up on it entirely. It had a few minutes of interesting things, but WAY too much stuff that didn't really relate to anything. If they re-did the show and made it a 30 minute documentary using just the relavent stuff instead of a 2.5 hour one with tons of crap, it would have been much better. He is saying that the government uses our emotions to try and control us. There didn't need to be 2.5 hours of video to say that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I watched the show for about 45 minutes, then got too bored and had to work on other stuff while listening to it. Then after a little less than 2 hours, I gave up on it entirely. It had a few minutes of interesting things, but WAY too much stuff that didn't really relate to anything. If they re-did the show and made it a 30 minute documentary using just the relavent stuff instead of a 2.5 hour one with tons of crap, it would have been much better. He is saying that the government uses our emotions to try and control us. There didn't need to be 2.5 hours of video to say that.

That was one of many things he has said, some of the other things I've listed in this thread. Why oversimplify it to this extent?

That being said, 2.5 hours does ask a lot of the viewer, but I still enjoyed it nonetheless.

[Lint Police]

No one responds and you're pissed. Someone responds and you quip that their opinion is over simplistic.

Why don't you start a blog where you can argue with yourself.

[besson3c]

Why are you picking a fight with me Lint?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There's one of those manufactured narratives he mentions.

I'd say the US is *among* the planets freest nations, but I don't think it's the freest.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'd say the US is *among* the planets freest nations, but I don't think it's the freest.

I concur. Top 40, maybe.

But I just love it when "freest" is mentioned. Pure propaganda repeated ad infinitum by people who don't know any better. Makes me chortle.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

No one responds and you're pissed. Someone responds and you quip that their opinion is over simplistic.

That's besson3c in a nutshell.

By the way, I agree with some of that summary about the media being used as a tool by the government to oversimplify the issues, and spread propaganda, rather than actually inform. I somehow doubt that Chomsky and I would agree on exactly which issues, and the exact nature of the propaganda though. For example, IMO, no amount of propaganda and dumbing down of issues seems to me to bother the political left at all if it's an issue they agree with, like currently with healthcare, or the environment. I get the feeling Chomskyites don't really mind any level of government/media hype behind such things, so long as the issues are those they support. If it comes to a war or military action they disagree with however, then suddenly the propaganda is evident to them and must be protested and shouted against from the rooftops.

[ebuddy]

This thread hasn't been a complete failure besson. It has provided an outlet for disgruntled people of the socialist UK to opine on the state of freedom in the US.

[besson3c]

Well, it has the markings of being a failure, although I think I deserve a high grade for my effort.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, it has the markings of being a failure, although I think I deserve a high grade for my effort.

I give you an A sir. Noam Chomsky offered valuable insights, but they didn't strike me as particularly novel. I give you an A because it might just be me. To CRASH's point, I find the focus of his exploits annoying at times.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This thread hasn't been a complete failure besson. It has provided an outlet for disgruntled people of the socialist UK to opine on the state of freedom in the US.

I think you're confusing "disgruntled" with "taking the piss".

Don't you have an online poker game to get to or something?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, it has the markings of being a failure, although I think I deserve a high grade for my effort.

How is it a failure, Bess? Chomsky's going on about exactly the same thing I'm talking about - you're actually one of the least free of the western nations, yet your government has you believing the "land of the free" guff in order to manipulate you.

You'll notice that some of the more patriotic people on this thread have chosen to engage in inter-country arguments rather than to take a look at their own government's shortcomings - a sure sign that the government propaganda is working.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I give you an A sir. Noam Chomsky offered valuable insights, but they didn't strike me as particularly novel. I give you an A because it might just be me. To CRASH's point, I find the focus of his exploits annoying at times.

Care you expound on this?

I'm far more interested in complete thoughts and rationale rather than just a verdict, in this case.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How is it a failure, Bess? Chomsky's going on about exactly the same thing I'm talking about - you're actually one of the least free of the western nations, yet your government has you believing the "land of the free" guff in order to manipulate you.

You'll notice that some of the more patriotic people on this thread have chosen to engage in inter-country arguments rather than to take a look at their own government's shortcomings - a sure sign that the government propaganda is working.

It depends on how you define "free", doesn't it? This has become a complete and utter cliché. Politicians use this rhetoric as if the US is the only free market democracy in the world, and worst of all, some people seem to believe this and feel it necessary to repeat this when it isn't really necessary.

Until we decide on what free actually means, I don't think we can really have this sort of conversation.

Have you seen the documentary, Doofy? You're an anarchist, right? Isn't this sort of the anarchist's bible?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Until we decide on what free actually means, I don't think we can really have this sort of conversation.

There's a catch 22 right there then.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you seen the documentary, Doofy?

Not really got the time or the required amounts of masochism to watch 2+ hours of Chomsky, so I'm going off your notes.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're an anarchist, right?

I prefer "anarcho-capitalist", so as to differentiate from the other styles of anarchism - most of which are simply communism in disguise. I'd be a minarchist, but politics has a way of screwing with people as they progress up the political ladder, rendering most politicians to be worthless scum.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There's a catch 22 right there then.

What is your definition, in the context of politics?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your definition, in the context of politics?

Basically the least amount of interaction between your life and politicians.
IMO, the best place for politicians is the golf course.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I concur. Top 40, maybe.

But I just love it when "freest" is mentioned. Pure propaganda repeated ad infinitum by people who don't know any better. Makes me chortle.

What do you consider the "freest" nation to be? Top 3.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Basically the least amount of interaction between your life and politicians.
IMO, the best place for politicians is the golf course.

Some would consider freedom to be related to economic freedom (e.g. right to conduct business without any regulations), others social freedoms (e.g. right to get an abortion and stuff like that), and others freedom of war time oppression and/or a totalitarian sort of government.

This would fall under your definition, but some want to pick and choose from the above.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Care you expound on this?

I'm far more interested in complete thoughts and rationale rather than just a verdict, in this case.

There is absolutely nothing novel about citing the importance of dissent for example and complaints of media have existed since the first paper left a printing press. It follows that beneficiaries of Chomsky's focus, ideological or otherwise, will find him edgy, brilliant or profound. They will generally appreciate his message. Of course it's not about left or right, but this doesn't mean his views aren't disagreeable or even one dimensional.

As a staunch opponent of Clinton's action in Sudan for example, Chomsky cited Human Rights Watch as a source for his notion that our pharmaceutical factory bombing "probably led to tens of thousands of deaths". It was a ridiculous idea of course and Human Rights Watch quickly stepped up to refute the claim. I get bored of opposition for the sake of it. It never satisfies its own criteria. There is no virtuous dissent here, it's... well it's propaganda of another kind.

[besson3c]

There is a lot more to Chomsky than an emphasis on the importance of dissent or a complaint of the media, I think. Chomsky explores the precise relationship between our government and the media, the effects and importance of dissent but also apathy, the nature of any state, its history, the connections between our state and the rest of the world, etc.

Really, I think the main problem with people's perception of Chomsky is that he is an egghead and is providing intellectual connections and intellectual concepts, not providing some sort of anarchist call to arms or providing some sort of societal editorial. There is little of practical use one is intended to take from his speeches, so it seems. Instead, he gets people to think and to try to better understand society, its relationship to government, etc.

[Orion27]

Besson3c:

Do you believe, as Chomsky does, "..in order for the system to function well, the media ought to have a liberal bias"
And do you believe as Chomsky does that the traditional media, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the New York Time's distort and manipulate facts in order to help promote an essentially conservative and elitist controlled government?

[besson3c]

Those seem like leading questions, Orion. I'm going to need to see your source so that I know whether this is what Chomsky said verbatim, and if so what the context was.

BTW, it's New York Times, not "New York Time's"

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are you picking a fight with me Lint?

Why? Because you seem to enjoy them so much.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why? Because you seem to enjoy them so much.

Hello Lint,

I like intellectual arguments, if you call these "fights". Stupid edgy and emotional driven snippy insulting and/or confrontational one-liners I can do without.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Besson3c:

Do you believe, as Chomsky does, "..in order for the system to function well, the media ought to have a liberal bias"
And do you believe as Chomsky does that the traditional media, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the New York Time's distort and manipulate facts in order to help promote an essentially conservative and elitist controlled government?

Well, I suppose it's a good thing there IS such a bias.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hello Lint,

I like intellectual arguments, if you call these "fights". Stupid edgy and emotional driven snippy insulting and/or confrontational one-liners I can do without.

Hello Roonie,

You can do without those? But they make up >90% of your posts?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, I suppose it's a good thing there IS such a bias.

As far as the MSM goes, I say liberal or conservative bias it doesn't really matter, this is not the crux of their problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hello Roonie,

You can do without those? But they make up >90% of your posts?

My posts are confrontational by being sarcastic and coaxing people to make what I think are better arguments. I rarely, if ever, call people names, insult them, or pick fights. If the word "rarely" can be disputed, 90% cannot be.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My posts are confrontational by being sarcastic and coaxing people to make what I think are better arguments. I rarely, if ever, call people names, insult them, or pick fights. If the word "rarely" can be disputed, 90% cannot be.

and sarcasm has seldom been known to cause arguments, right?

At one time I put a great deal of effort into my posts, I would provide vast amounts of exposition to support an idea. However, due to the nature of many who frequent this place, I rarely waste my time anymore.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and sarcasm has seldom been known to cause arguments, right?

At one time I put a great deal of effort into my posts, I would provide vast amounts of exposition to support an idea. However, due to the nature of many who frequent this place, I rarely waste my time anymore.

Sarcasm can be a very tricky thing, it is definitely my weakness and something I should limit myself from doing as often as I do. I agree with you. Sarcasm can be very passive aggressive and confrontational at the same time. However, sarcasm can also be used as tool for conveying a point effectively without putting other people on edge. It all depends on how it is used, I guess.

Insults, fight picking, name calling, and the like always pretty much all have the same guaranteed outcome. At the very least I think this is something we can cut out, in part by taking this less personally, seriously, and being less aggressive overall. It not only creates a better atmosphere, but it is a better way to have a good conversation anyway.

This of course assumes that people in here are interested in good conversation, which is definitely not a given. Often times people prefer to preach or proselytize rather than actually listening and having an actual productive back and forth conversation. I've come to believe that some people literally come here because they wish to do the former.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Those seem like leading questions, Orion. I'm going to need to see your source so that I know whether this is what Chomsky said verbatim, and if so what the context was.

BTW, it's New York Times, not "New York Time's"

The quote is from the movie, Manufacturing Consent. The questions are directly related to Chomsky's
thesis. Christ, you didn't even watch the movie!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As far as the MSM goes, I say liberal or conservative bias it doesn't really matter, this is not the crux of their problem.

That is the whole point of the film. The film is Chomsky's indictment of State Power, aided by a conservative
media he felt was instrumental in communicating the State's message. Did you even watch the film?

[besson3c]

Of course I did, but obviously I did not gleam on to the same things that you did. Something involving conservative or liberal media would not be how I'd describe the "whole point of the film", if we had to settle on one point (there were several).

I'll answer the question from my *own* perspective leaving Chomsky out of this for now, for now ignoring your rather childish attempts to pick a fight with me by questioning whether I watched the movie...

"Essentially conservative" I don't know about, as the definition of conservatism is not a static thing in this country anymore. In many ways Bush was not conservative in comparison to Reagan. There is also social and economic conservatism, which do not necessarily intertwine. "Elitist government" I agree with, but I wouldn't stop there. Our entire society is essentially an aristocracy.

As far as the media manipulating facts to benefit the state, this is definitely central to what Chomsky was talking about. I think they do manipulate facts, but in their subservience, laziness, valuing infotainment over actual news, and everything coming back to revenue - not necessary in some grand conspiratorial agenda in collusion with the government.

As far as the leanings of the media, like I said, I don't think it really matters much. The public cannot properly form an informed and educated opinion while the media operates in a system that churns out infotainment. I don't think you can really fixate on whether their sound bytes and chatter lean right or left and how this affects voting patterns, because limited and misinformation is limited and misinformation regardless of which side it favors. All bets are off when it comes to how incomplete narratives are spun in people's minds. We've seen evidence of these incomplete narratives when it comes to polls on how many people think that Obama was born in this country, is a Muslim, etc. It is better to stamp out ignorance period, rather than simply ignorance that just favors one side or the other, and given the doozies that people come up with and actually believe (regardless of who benefits), it's hard to attribute their precise sources. People believe all sorts of crazy things, to try to get inside their minds is to step towards insanity.

What's with your trolling signature? Is it really necessary to provoke people this way?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Of course I did, but obviously I did not gleam on to the same things that you did. Something involving conservative or liberal media would not be how I'd describe the "whole point of the film", if we had to settle on one point (there were several).

I'll answer the question from my *own* perspective leaving Chomsky out of this for now, for now ignoring your rather childish attempts to pick a fight with me by questioning whether I watched the movie...

"Essentially conservative" I don't know about, as the definition of conservatism is not a static thing in this country anymore. In many ways Bush was not conservative in comparison to Reagan. There is also social and economic conservatism, which do not necessarily intertwine. "Elitist government" I agree with, but I wouldn't stop there. Our entire society is essentially an aristocracy.

As far as the media manipulating facts to benefit the state, this is definitely central to what Chomsky was talking about. I think they do manipulate facts, but in their subservience, laziness, valuing infotainment over actual news, and everything coming back to revenue - not necessary in some grand conspiratorial agenda in collusion with the government.

As far as the leanings of the media, like I said, I don't think it really matters much. The public cannot properly form an informed and educated opinion while the media operates in a system that churns out infotainment. I don't think you can really fixate on whether their sound bytes and chatter lean right or left and how this affects voting patterns, because limited and misinformation is limited and misinformation regardless of which side it favors. All bets are off when it comes to how incomplete narratives are spun in people's minds. We've seen evidence of these incomplete narratives when it comes to polls on how many people think that Obama was born in this country, is a Muslim, etc. It is better to stamp out ignorance period, rather than simply ignorance that just favors one side or the other, and given the doozies that people come up with and actually believe (regardless of who benefits), it's hard to attribute their precise sources. People believe all sorts of crazy things, to try to get inside their minds is to step towards insanity.

What's with your trolling signature? Is it really necessary to provoke people this way?

I think you know damn well how close Washington and the MSM are. To imply otherwise is disingenuous.
All you have to do is read the the Washington Post, The New York Times (sic), ect. and note attributions by various and sundry unnamed sources and "high administration officials". Access is what the culture is all about. The internet has gone a long way to stamping out ignorance, because, as you know, having watched the movie, research and access was what Chomsky used to separate himself from the common man. This was 1988 before everyone had access. Chomsky is right, the media did (sic) control the message.That is no longer possible. Just witness it's slow death.
When I characterized the media as conservative, you missed the whole point. Chomsky is so far left, he views the past and current media as conservative. Chomsky's whole polemic is anti-capitalist and anti-american. His self description is an libertarian anarchist. His idea of economic revolution is the the Israeli Kibbutz. Which is where we are heading if the current administration does not change it's economic policies. So I decided to add a new signature in protest.

[besson3c]

The whole left and right thing from a political science perspective comes down to social and economic issues, hence the x and y axis based charts that have been devised to map political ideology.

Your modern leftist is accepting of political involvement when it comes to economics, but demands freedom when it comes to social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Your modern conservative demands economic freedom, but seems a little more willing to accept the government involved on social issues, often when it aligns with their religious values.

An anarchist that wishes there to not be a state would demand economic freedom, but *also* social freedom. You simply cannot say that Chomsky is left or right, because neither apply. The same goes with libertarianism.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is a lot more to Chomsky than an emphasis on the importance of dissent or a complaint of the media, I think.

I responded specifically to the points you claimed to have highlighted as most interesting to you besson. I mean, this isn't where you opine on a figure as if less interested in discussion than persuasion is it? Don't make me change my grade on this thread.

Chomsky explores the precise relationship between our government and the media, the effects and importance of dissent but also apathy, the nature of any state, its history, the connections between our state and the rest of the world, etc.

Really, I think the main problem with people's perception of Chomsky is that he is an egghead and is providing intellectual connections and intellectual concepts, not providing some sort of anarchist call to arms or providing some sort of societal editorial. There is little of practical use one is intended to take from his speeches, so it seems. Instead, he gets people to think and to try to better understand society, its relationship to government, etc.

I'm confused. A major portion of this man's career was dedicated to societal editorializing. He was an activist philosopher for crying out loud. His scientific observations were specious at best and certainly not novel IMO.

I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that he's some intangible sage. He's simply most popular and revered among those who appreciate his exploits.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I responded specifically to the points you claimed to have highlighted as most interesting to you besson. I mean, this isn't where you opine on a figure as if less interested in discussion than persuasion is it? Don't make me change my grade on this thread.

Now I'm confused. What points were you responding to?

I'm confused. A major portion of this man's career was dedicated to societal editorializing. He was an activist philosopher for crying out loud. His scientific observations were specious at best and certainly not novel IMO.

I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that he's some intangible sage. He's simply most popular and revered among those who appreciate his exploits.

I shouldn't have brought up science, because you're right, he was more about philosophy than science. He was an activist, but I think of him as a different kind of activist than your modern activist. Either that, or I don't really know what an activist is.

To me, an activist is somebody that is out there picketing and doing stuff to persuade people to pressure their leaders into change - usually pretty tangible things in the way of the public policy du jour. I don't think Chomsky actually thought that we would just do away with all conservatives/democrats/left/right values, that the media would just go away or fall in line, or that we would accept his vision of anarchy. I think what Chomsky wanted to do was get us to think about what could be, where we are, what the fundamental problems of society are, etc. in order to push the sorts of changes that would move us closer to the sort of country and world he would prefer.

In a way I see him sort of like Ron Paul. I think Paul would be the first to tell you that he didn't expect to actually be elected for president, but he wanted to push people in a certain direction.

To that end, I would say that the fact that we are even having this conversation is novel, that he managed to get his ideas out there and his theories and observations contemplated by many. We need more people like him.

My sense is that you are generally one to ponies and rainbows poo dissent for the sake of dissent. Maybe that is your conservative sensibilities influencing you in wanting to keep things the same. Me, I really can't get past the idea that we as a society can't do much, much, much better, and that all of this (including the left and right stuff) is just backwards. Maybe what is not backwards is not what Chomsky would say, and maybe what is not backwards is just something that we as a society won't be ready for anytime in my lifetime, but ideas that open up a whole new realm of possibility still intrigue me. I'm far more progressive in the literal sense of this term than I am a Democrat.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

An anarchist that wishes there to not be a state would demand economic freedom, but *also* social freedom. You simply cannot say that Chomsky is left or right, because neither apply. The same goes with libertarianism.

What you're missing, Bess, is that most anarchists are actually commies in disguise. The only ones who aren't are the anarcho-capitalists, and they scare the poop out of regular anarchists (because they're "evil right wing bastards").

Chomsky is a leftie, without a doubt.

[besson3c]

How do you figure that anarchists are communists in disguise?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you figure that anarchists are communists in disguise?

Although Collectivist anarchism shares many similarities with Anarchist communism there are also many key differences between them. For example collectivist anarchists believe that the economy and most or all property should be collectively owned by society while anarchist communists by contrast believe that the concept of ownership should be rejected by society and replaced with the concept of usage.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Important principles of syndicalism include workers' solidarity, direct action (such as general strikes and workplace recuperations), and workers' self-management.

"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

Only anarcho-capitalists are proper anarchists. The rest are commies trying to look cool.

I've had many, many chats with French/Italian "anarchists" and to be frank, I scare the crap out of them because I don't believe in "the collective". They can't handle not having the collective looking after their ass for them. Thus, commie.

[besson3c]

I can see socialist, Chomsky even calls himself one, but I don't see how you get Communism from that.

I will take back what I said before though since I was wrong. If he is socialist he would obviously be a lefty. Sorry, I was being dumb about that.