Chomsky: Not funny, just smart

[dorkulon]

I thought this interview with Noam Chomsky in the Buffalo Beast, the psychopathic political satire/commentary magazine that brings us the 50 Most Loathsome Americans every year, was one of the best things I've ever read, a perfect mixture of humor and intelligence. The way the Beast staggers serious questions with plain silly ones, and the way Chomsky responds to the silly questions with completely humorless answers, is totally hilarious to me. The highlight is this exchange in which Chomsky succinctly rebuffs the Beast's sarcastic "anti-American" charge:

Why do you hate America?

I realize that the question is not intended seriously. However, there is a serious point lurking behind it. A crucial totalitarian principle is that the state is identified with the people, the culture, the society. For those who adopt that principle, criticism of the state is hatred of the country. In the old Soviet Union, for example, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet” or “haters of Russia,” because they condemned policies of the Holy State. We, however, rightly regarded them as the people most dedicated to the welfare of the Russian people. The concept has biblical origins. King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible, condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel because he denounced the crimes of the evil king, who, like all totalitarians, identified state power—himself—with the society and people. Where there is a democratic culture, such a notion would be ridiculed. In Italy, for example, if someone were to publish a book called “the Anti-Italians,” denouncing people who dare to criticize government policy, people would collapse with ridicule. It is rather striking that in the US, such a book (of course full of outlandish lies) is reviewed seriously and treated with respect. The US is alone, to my knowledge, outside of totalitarian states, in that concepts like “hate America” or “anti-American” are adopted in the style of King Ahab and his totalitarian successors. That should trouble us.

Exactly. I've never seen it said better. Why is a guy this eloquent and well-informed considered too radical for TV when ignorant maniacs like Coulter are on TV every other day?

[BayCityProgressive]

1. becaus he is smart

and he is a self-proclamed socialist. He will never be on television.

[dorkulon]

16. Isn't every liberal really a socialist?

I know I am.

[Az]

2. Its the Decency act

Chomsky lays bare the fact that the Emperor is naked. And the censors won't allow nudity on TV.

[PLF]

3. I'll assume your question is purely rhetorical

Thanks for posting this. I'll give it a read.

[dorkulon]

8. Yes, rhetorical.

In fact, the Beast answers my question in their "Loathsome" entry on David Horowitz: "His favorite targets are university professors he declares enemies of "academic freedom," because nothing is more dangerous to a neocon than someone who actually knows what they're talking about."

[rock]

4. Oh, I don't know. I think it's hilarious.

You know, ask a stupid question, get an erudite answer.

[d_b]

5. Chomky and Ali

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

Ali blew this one.

[Az]

7. You don't play language games with a linguistics expert

You will always lose.

[d_b]

9. hahaha

bilingual vs. bi-sexual :rofl:

[back2basics909]

6. Thanks for posting,...

Why is a guy this eloquent and well-informed considered too radical for TV when ignorant maniacs like Coulter are on TV every other day?

He is not really considered that way, he is considered as dangerous.. rather his ideas are considered dangerous. Which is why he gets attacked as a conspiracy theorists or anti-American.

If he were no the TV every night the World would be a far better place.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Excellent quote, dorkulon.

Take how the rightwingers describe the DU? (Hint: starts with a "t" and rhymes with haters)

[Selatius]

11. To answer your final question:

The ideas that Chomsky advocates, left libertarianism and to be exact anarcho-syndicalism, are simply opposed to the entire power structure of the US economy and the political system of representation. The problem is not with Chomsky or his persona, which is rather soft-spoken and level-headed compared to Coulter. The problem with Chomsky is that he pushes socialism.

The corporate news outlets exist to serve their owners. It serves to benefit the small class of owners first and foremost. All for-profit corporations exist to make a profit for their owners. The goods or services they provide to you are incidental to the goal of profit maximization. Whenever providing you with a good or service conflicts with the goal of profit maximization, you likely lose. (e.g. an insurance company dropping your coverage or denying you enrollment due to "pre-existing conditions")

Socialism, to put it simply, is diametrically opposed to that. Socialism says that the resources belong to society as a whole, not to private individuals or a small class of owners or shareholders. Those who wish to use those resources for their own private gain only have the privilege, not the right, to pursue that goal. Those whom society deems as too exploitative or greedy or abusive of fellow individuals in the pursuit of profit can be denied access to capital, can have their privilege of access revoked, and those who strive not only to innovate and to progress but also to serve the public good to the best of their abilities are rewarded by society as a whole with continued privilege of access to capital.

In socialism, you are free to pursue your goals and dreams, but if those dreams involve depriving others and exploiting others and inflicting misery on others at the expense of the public good, you have no one but yourself to blame if others around you in society decide to revoke your privilege and smash your dream.

[Beelzebud]

12. His rational response is exactly why they label him as being too radical for public consumption.

[StClone]

14. What about Hugo

He reads. Using his interpretation of Chomsky's works, especially Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, is he scandalously off-base or close to home with Chomsky's views?

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/09/21/chavez-chomsky.html

[dorkulon]

15. Imagine * trying to get through that. :-O nt

[Goblinmonger]

13. It's a grammar thang

People get flashbacks to their school days.

My college grammar class was on Chomsky's transformational grammar. LOVED diagramming those sentences.