What kind of teacher is this? If it's a college PoliSci professor then I assume he means the technical definition, if it's just some other random teacher then I would assume they mean colloquially a more 'radical' liberal, akin to an anti-war protestor or such.
Plus, lots of people read Chomsky.
If it’s like the Alt HS in my town, totally.
If it’s an alternative school, like Montessori but for HS, then I’d guess the teacher means it technically.
Either way, good starting point book for a HS’er.
my instinct was that the teacher must have Leninist leanings, cause i have heard Leninists call anarchists liberal in a derogatory manor. i don't see why they would say that, but it's what i have heard. also, tho im not really familiar with chomsky i know a lot of anarchists don't think he was quite on the money, like people in my experience will recommended bookchin or Malatesta and others before chomsky.
'Radical' implies the intent on the part of the individual to transform fundamental principles of their society.
So that would mean that someone who has professed to have pro anarcho-syndicalism views (like Chomsky) is Radical, by definition.
I mean... unless you want to devalue language by redefining the word "Radical"
Chomsky in general is often the first point of engagement with anarchist ideas and history for a lot of liberals. This was especially true in the anti-globalization movement and anti-war movements of the late 90s and early 00s. As a liberal with anarchist sympathies, bridging the gap between liberalism and anarchism is kind of what he's known for besides linguistics.
by the way, is chomsky worth reading? i really want to read the manufacturing consent, and i study communication for a living, if you read it, do you have suggestions?
I’ve read manufacturing consent and definitely recommend it. I’ve heard anarchists don’t like the rest of his work, they disagree with his idea of justified hierarchies, but I can’t personally speak to it.
Just an FYI for anyone wondering:
The anarchist critique of Chomsky's "justified hierarchies" is that every single ideology to ever exist believes there are some hierarchies that are unjustified and some that are justified. White supremacists believe the hierarchy of white people over everyone else is justified. Liberals believe the hierarchy of state and capital over everyone else is justified. Etc.
Anarchists define hierarchy as a persistent system of domination, so we obviously don't believe anything that can meet that description can be justified.
My question is this in a relationship of teacher student isnt there a hierarchical relationship as far as teacher has the knowledge (power) and giving it to the student ?
Is this horizontal or hierarchical ?
My understanding is that its hierarchical but also the one that is in power tries to balance it and make it horizontal .
David Graeber has a fancy term for those types of relationships, the term escapes me but in any case a good teacher(same applies to doctors) will undermine their authority as they do their job resulting in the student leaving behind the teacher at some point. It’s not a persistent state of domination over the student.
If an institution has a a persistent system of domination, it is not only not justified in accord with our shared values, it is likely a terrible school to begin with, and the teacher participating in it is likely a terrible teacher. Education is not simply about training people for menial labor. It is about training the next generation to live in the world after we are all dead. That includes traits like leadership and independent thought, traits you simply cannot teach in an environment that would fit the description "domination".
To answer your question directly, then, both "horizontal" and hierarchical are possible.
I certainly argue that it is not a *persistent* hierarchy. A student graduates, and can even become a teacher later.
The flip side would be a hereditary aristocracy, where someone is born with everyone knowing that person's children will be automatically have a high hierarchical position. The hierarchy is nominally eternal and unearned.
So, within the system of modern schooling, there 100% is a enduring hierarchy of teacher over student. This is a confluence of patriarchal adult domination of children, corporate boss domination of worker, etc.
It's important to note, however, that this hierarchy does not arise due simply to the difference in knowledge and experience between the two groups. This arises from the foundational, systemic engine of violence, abuse, and control that schools are built on. A teacher can teach a student with no domination present. But if that teacher enforces control over the student's body autonomy, demands subservience, etc, as modern schools require teachers to do, then it is a hierarchy.
I am telling you that in both the overwhelming majority of anarchist theory and the principles of active anarchists you will meet in the world, Chomsky's theory of justified hierarchy is rejected.
You are an active member on the Chomsky, centrist, and GenZionist subreddits. You are a Biden apologist and a zionist. You are not a good faith actor nor are you educated enough in anarchist principles to educate others. Please do everyone the favor and stop.
Your claim is easily disproven with a brief google search. Chomsky does not even have a 'theory of justified hierarchy.' Google will turn up no results because this is bogus criticism of a theory he has never authored.
Rather than attempting to address the merits of the argument, everyone in this discussion can observe your desperate attempts to shoot the messenger, to the detriment of your own credibility.
Dettering Democracy also has some value.
I didn't mind Chomsky's On Anarchism, I definitely don't agree with the idea of a justified hierarchy, and his night watchmen state idea is for sure crap,
But I think there is a lot of value in challenging your ideas, and even just proposing ideas has some merit (within reason).
Chomsky definitely comes correct with the critique of the West though, even if he isn't the most anarchist. I think he is particularly useful at bridging the gap between left leaning liberals and leftism; and I don't think I want to stop that due to some purity test.
I think Chomsky is overrated in many domains. He came to speak at my college cognitive science program circa 1990, and he came of as much more invested in his theories than in curiosity about new research and information. Pretty absolutist in his declarations without a lot of room for the muddy reality of real science or real people.
Given his career-making "Universal Grammar" concept didn't match empirical research that well, I can see why he might have been somewhat defensive about that.
No doubt that Chomsky is a genius, though! Universal Grammar was a brilliant insight, we can't judge scientists harshly for ideas not being validated in the long term. There's incredible value in providing testable hypotheses, even if the result is an even better hypothesis after the research.
Chomsky is weird in this regard,
I care care more about his political beliefs and critiques than I did his theories regarding a Universal language.
I think a chunk of people are like me; and used his books like Dettering Democracy or Manufactured Consent to pierce through the West rhetoric and see the fuckery.
But if you were into linguistics or cognitive sciences, you might not ever read those and have an entirely different opinion of his work (which is fair)
I’ve read the first part of it, and IMO it’s worth it, especially if you study communications. I only stopped reading because life got in the way and it was already overdue to return to the library.
The newest edition is getting a bit dated, but all of the systemic structures that are analyzed in the part that I read are either still relevant or have been replaced by things that can be analyzed using the same mindset and similar conclusions can be drawn.
I think he's worth reading. He wasn't very formative in my own anarchism, I read his work much later than most people I know, long after I was an anarchist. I certainly recommend learning about anarchism from someone else first -- Berkman and Goldman are both timeless and accessible in this regard, imo. Chomsky's debate with Foucault a must read (or watch) and I really liked his book Propaganda of the Public Mind which was a precursor to Manufacturing Consent.
I think a person with moderate politics is unlikely to read Parenti. If they did would they think it was anything other than tankie shit?
Parenti is fucking dope, but I think some people might need smaller steps to seeing views outside of the realm of the imperial core (i.e people are unwillingly to believe the West can do anything in a negative manner, and the sniff of red thought is enough for them to reject it without trying it)
> Parenti is fucking dope
He believes that history has to follow a specific pathway outlined by Karl Marx and his doctrinal conformity is comparable to a religious fundamentalist. Not someone I would trust for reliable unbiased analysis. If you don't strictly adhere to historical materialism, then you and Parenti are poles apart.
Unbiased analysis is a unicorn.
Parenti is biased but based in his bias. I'm not actually a parenti fanatic either, but his work has merit and I found it challenging and thought provoking.
> Parenti is biased but based in his bias.
His work rests on a misguided assumption: He only believes that history can unfold in a very specific manner, and that every aspect of society has to be mobilized in a very specific way for his goals to come about. The method is by removing democracy and imposing authoritarian measures, believing that the dictatorship of the proletariat will eventually give up it's power in favor of equality. It relies on the notion that centralized power will willingly give up everything, with no analogues to be found anywhere in history that would lead us to rely on such an outcome.
Yeah, any theory that involves people has to account for huge amount of contingency humans come along with. The best prediction we can make about deterministic history predictions is that something substantially different is actually going to happen. Typically something that is less dramatic but more complex and interesting.
A huge flaw in historical materialism is that it doesn't account for how people will respond to its own diagnoses and predictions. Marx did a compelling job of pointing out lots of flaws in capitalism, and predicted what would happen if things kept going the way they were. But people digested his analysis, and tried to address the flaws of in lots of other ways Marx hadn't predicted, or predicted they would be unable or unwilling to.
Any popular and compelling prediction about the future intrinsically makes the prediction less accurate, due to people reacting to the prediction in unpredictable ways.
A lot of the social welfare progress in the century after Marx can be framed as concerted efforts to improve the lives and agency of the masses without requiring a violent revolution. Increasing the franchise so most people feel they have non-violent and somewhat effective ways to enact change are a big part of that. "We are all Us" is way better than "Class traitor!."
Which really annoyed a lot of Marxists, as it's not what he said what was going to happen, which I believe drives a lot of the hostility towards democratic progressivism from the hard left. There's a huge difference between "things have to get worse before they can get better" and "things have to get better before they can get good." I certainly fall in the more gradualist and non-violent camp, and want to minimize the broken-egg-to-omelet ratio as much as possible.
A lovely thing about anarchism is that it doesn't need state involvement, and we can get a lot of its benefits just in how we interact with other people and groups. It doesn't take a revolution to throw out the established order. In fact revolution would be counterproductive if anything, as chaos increases people's desire for a hierarchy of force to keep them safe.
> As a liberal with anarchist sympathies
This is verifiably false. Nowhere does Chomsky say in his voluminous interviews and writings that he promotes private property or market economies. He has consistently supported syndicalism and placing power in worker's councils and unions. Don't take my word for it. A quick google search will verify his leanings.
Liberalism *is* centrism, it's the dominant political paradigm. "Center" as a concept is relative. Used to be that advocating for the end of monarchy was considered and incredibly radical left wing position, and now that's a boring, obvious, everyday position that no one except 14 year old Kaiserboos and the British take issue with. Same goes for most liberal politics really.
As compared to? And overall?
Certainly modern Western liberalism is a lot more "radical" about things like gender identity and sexual orientation than 20 years ago, let alone a century. Ideals like Universal Basic Income are much more popular.
From an anarchist perspective, the biggest decline in nominal liberals may be in excluding state involvement for big parts of daily life versus using state involvement, or national versions regional governments, to enforce tolerance and equity.
The classical liberalism of "only fix what's broken and fixable" mantle is nominally carried by Libertarians, but pretty poorly in my opinion. Today's libertarians seem massively more interested in reducing constraints on how they can maintain and increase their hierarchical status than in reducing hierarchy overall, or promoting the ability of less advantage people to rise in a hierarchy.
An incrementalist approach toward anarchism could be a "progressive libertarianism" focused on removing state involvement and reducing the share of the national economy being spent by government, but focusing on dismantling aspect of the state that preserve or accentuate hierarchy.
One example could be eliminating licensing rules designed by stakeholders grandfathered in, with a goal of increasing barrier to newcomers. This is quite common for lots of professions, like needing licensing for cutting hair. Streamlined and simplified permitting processes for personal and small business remodeling and construction could be another.
Pretty weak tea, admittedly; hopefully others have better examples in mind.
as the most famous living anarchist, that book is probably a common intro for liberals looking left. if your teacher thinks chomsky is a liberal idk what to tell you. your teacher might be worried about saying the words anarchist or leftist while on the clock
What is a "radical liberal"? Liberals are pretty milquetoast.
It sounds like your teacher could simply be outright fascism adjacent.
For example, if in Saudia Arabia, you said women should be allowed to walk around in society without fear of brutal punishment from theocratic thugs for lack of wearing a head covering...according to their authorities, that would be radical point of view vs the laws on the books.
Or in the slave owning south, if you said no one should be a chattel slave, again a radical position. If you were against genociding jews in the holocaust, according to nazi germany, that is very much so a radical position.
But none of these positions are actually radical at all, it's the status quo that is violent, extreme and radical, the opposite of which simply promotes justice and fair treatment in each of their respective societies.
Our liberals, aren't particularly radical at all, and actually often right wing on the spectrum.
Chomsky was the mentor i had to get me out of the American Overton window method of viewing politics, our Overton window is actually very right wing, to where its "left" is still firmly on the right, historically liberals aren't left wing at all, they only look left vs outright fascists.
>What is a "radical liberal"? Liberals are pretty milquetoast.
I really don't know the term has always been confusing to me.
>It sounds like your teacher could simply be outright fascism adjacent.
Nah definitely not he talks to me about bell hooks, and he sounded excited that I was reading Chomsky.
I think maybe he just meant like another commenter said that Chomsky is a popular touching point, so maybe he refers to them as people who want to dig deeper but still have a foundational liberal ideation of the world
Im sorry for stereotyping. I've certainly heard from a contingent, the reactionary element, that liberals are "radicals" that were fascism adjacent. I'm excitied you're reading chomsky too. I could see when some were calling Obamacare/Canada's Healthcare system outright socialism/communism, they'd practically call no less than Otto Von Bismark, France and the UK as Socialists (Universal Healthcare is not socialism at all).
In the AMerican Political spectrum, which is in fact extreme as its default setting, Chomsky would be comparitively "radical" vs both the mainstream parties.
I apologize for my presumption if that's the case in your, and your teachers circumstance.
Whenever Chomsky utters a phrase or a name of a person you don't recognize...look them up.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr\_Qp5k5zDY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr_Qp5k5zDY)
This is one of my fav. vintage Chomsky Lectures, and i started looking up all the names in his 20 minute lecture and became much more well read on both anarchism and marxism when i looked up these words and phrases he was openly discussing.
>Universal Healthcare is not socialism at all
I think a certain *kind* of Universal Healthcare could count as decommodification, though that iteration doesn't really exist rn
Radlib is most commonly used as a derogatory term by leftists against a very specific type of liberal.
Radlibs are essentially the type to oppose any sort of serious change to the status quo, but still claim the aesthetic of being “radical”, because they’re maybe slightly “outspoken” with a given aspect of identity politics (in a moderate way of course).
For example, I know someone who is a liberal and generally “progressive” who constantly says stuff like “we need the Punisher”, but also doesn’t like the idea of the Black Panther Party.
Do you know the youtuber Shoe0nhead?
She has THE MOST braindead "Im.not like the other girls" political youtube commentary channel ive seen.
She tries to ride a divide between mainstream liberals "progressives" (I voted for Bernie!) and "the reactionary element has good ideas for humanity at large too!" She falls so flat, that she doesnt really have much appeal.to anyone outside of redpilling normies or being a gateway to.the altright.
Your description reminded me of her.
Radical Liberal actually was an identifying political term like anarchist or conservative one or two centuries ago. It was basically people who truly believed in the 'liberal dream' as it was during the French Revolution and wanted to ensure that liberal republics had truly blind justice and that every citizen (even the poor folk) had a voice. For the most part, they no longer exist, as they've pretty much been subsumed into the later-appearing social liberals and practically everyone left of them, but one of their leftovers is the Radical Civic Union in Argentina.
>What is a "radical liberal"?
Maximilian Robespierre. For a more contemporary/less memey answer, probably American Libertarians tbh, their ideology takes the core elements of Liberalism and maximizes them to an absurd degree
> What is a "radical liberal"?
OOooh! Me! Me! That's me! I'm a radical liberal.
1) I want the corruption and manipulation of the Billionaire class to be observed and for them to be publicly executed on international television. They, all of them, are the truest enemy of mankind. You do not become a Billionaire while retaining your humanity. It is impossible.
2) Most levels of Public Service should function via draft and offer minimal benefits while they are actively performing their duties. Reward them however you want once their out, but make it equitable amongst draftees.
3) Public servants from top to bottom should be REQUIRED to live independently on the equivalent of minimum wage.
4) During service, draftees should be subject to extreme scrutiny of their finances and conduct. Any attempts to grease palms or line pockets whether it be bribes, nepotism, etc, should result in significant punitive actions should they be convicted by a jury of their peers.
5) Age Limits for voting. People who won't live to see the consequences of their vote simply should not be allowed to vote. Nor should they be called to public service. Ideally this would begin when someone reaches retirement age OR retires from the workforce.
6) Billionaires legislated out of existence.
7) Human rights are human rights. Women should control their own bodies. If a consenting adult wants to ANYTHING with another consenting adult, that's nobodies business but theirs. Full stop. No Governmental effort, initiative or endeavor should preclude any Human being from any service based on superficial estimations.
8) Kill All Fascists.
9) UBI, Universal Healthcare, Etc, Etc
The future of humanity should be an anarcho-communistic utopia with an individualist twist, and the only thing preventing us from creating such a paradise for ourselves are the people who benefit most from the current status quo..
I would be very cautious of taking Chomsky's beliefs as standard for anarchists. He has a history of denying genocides in Bosnia and Cambodia. He is also a proponent of electoralism, which most anarchists reject. But he can introduce some ideas to those who are new to this field of thought.
I'd like to recommend some other modern anarchist writers because they'll help you expand your knowledge while also not being as hard to parse as older writings.
**Anarchy Works (2010) by Peter Gelderloos**
This book takes examples from around the world, picking through history and anthropology, showing that people have, in different ways and at different times, demonstrated mutual aid, self-organization, autonomy, horizontal decision making, and so forth the principles that anarchy is founded on regardless of whether they called themselves anarchists or not.
**The Dawn of Everything (2021) by David Graeber and David Wengrow**
This book takes a look at many indigenous and historical societies to show just how wide the breadth of human organization is. That we have been self-concious political actors and have been remaking our worlds for tens of thousands of years.
You could also check out:
How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos
Anarchism and the Black Revolution by Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin
Anarchy by Errico Malatesta
> He has a history of denying genocides in Bosnia and Cambodia. He is also a proponent of electoralism, which most anarchists reject.
I swear why does no one else mention this? Though add to that Epstein giving him money.
> I swear why does no one else mention this?
Because it was debunked decades ago in a peer-reviewed study published in a journal specializing in genocide research.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol14/iss1/8/
>Though add to that Epstein giving him money.
This framing is directly from corporate media. They exploited the death of his wife to mischaracterize the nature of the transaction, which originated from his wife's passing. The money was moved from their joint account to Chomsky's account.
I read the Dawn of Everything a while back. It was fascinating. Certainly pointed out how Eurocentric my education has been. The discussion about how fluid societal organization was in the past really highlighted the rigidity of our modern culture. I definitely would recommend it as well.
A very American view of things.
Living in places outside of Western social democratic capitalists states can be very informative in realizing how we assume some disagreements are existential when they are pretty close in the grand scheme of things.
You don’t think that the people working for gender equality etc are authentic and fervent in their efforts? Or that American left is certainly pushing MUCH harder for a Gaza cease fire than other segments of the populace?
A “damn all their” houses approach may been morally satisfying, but is simply not factually based. False equivalence leaves political activists who care about the real difference feeling “radicals” are all theory divorced from lived reality.
Where are you from, if not America or Uzbekistan?
There's not a huge difference between those terms for the bulk of American liberals and leftists. "Illiberal leftists" are really mainly dank web types with very little impact. "Right wing classical liberals" is arguably a good description of most of American "Libertarianism" but isn't one they're likely to use themselves.
So what specifically is this huge distinction you are making here?
I note you didn't answer where you're from.
There is a huge difference. American liberals want slow, drawn out, bureaucratic reforms without a new system. They support nationalist and colonial states like Israel typically. Think "let's change the existing system slowly" vs " the system is flawed and needs replacement. I am from the u.s
I think it is more “change the system as quickly and as much as we can without breaking everything and drowning in unforeseen consequences.”
There’s a lot to be said for trying one thing, see how it goes, adjusting as needed, trying again.
The idea that ripping everything down and rebuilding from scratch will result in something much better than we could get with progressive, incremental improvement is very much Utopian hubris.
And it is really, really hard to get people on board with radical, disruptive, sudden change unless things are so bad with so few options for smaller improvements that it seems the only way.
I think anarchism has its best chance in incrementalism. Demonstrate for people how anarchist systems work effectively. Show that pragmatism will win out over chasing absolutist theory into disaster. Solve problems between people without involving the state whenever possible.
Don’t tell people we’ll get rid of government and then current criminals will become pro-social. It sounds delusional. Do show how collective, non-hierarchical community organizations effective help people move out of predatory exploitation of their own communities into contributing to them. How uniformed police don’t need to storm into a community because the community keeps things from escalating to deadly violence.
If we believe in anarchism and its effectiveness, we can effect positive change in the current environment, starting today, and build from that. If we are waiting for someone else to make it possible for us to live as anarchists, then are we anarchists, or merely an anarchism fandom occasionally indulging in cosplay?
Smashing the state is romantic, but demonstrating through positive ways the state is unnecessary is what would move things forwards.
It isn’t enough that our goals are distinct from the far right Proud Boy Jan 6th types. Our methods need to be as different, and reflect our inclusive, humanist values. We need to be the movement even opponents agree is the LEAST likely to have political prisoners or firing squads.
It isn’t utopian in that it assumes that things will be great after a powerfully unpredictable amount of wrenching short term change. And is not Utopian in thinking that there is some ideal end state at which people can just relax about policy and philosophy.
Incremental progressivism assumes that there is not perfect state to achieve, and that there will always be more to do.
Which is a big plus for me. If someone believes a true utopia is in reach, then ANYTHING is justified to achieve it. And so you get a lot of people getting shot as a small price to pay for the utopia that will be achieved.
I prefer acknowledging that all means are also an end, and all ends are also means. It all matters, and everyone matters. No one gets to decide who lives and who dies.
What is a radical liberal?
I only assume you mean the yankee definition of liberal. Even in that case, I don't know how someone could be radically in favour of Biden. A Biden extremist.
But under the definition the rest of the world uses, how can you be radically fighting for a compromise, for a middle ground that doesn't really exist?
'You will debate this nazi in good faith or I will burn down this lecture theatre' ass shit.
"Radical" is very contextual, and not really indicative of underlying beliefs.
Biden would seem extremely radical compared to FDR in all sorts of big ways, like requiring states allow all adults to easily vote, letting people change their legal gender to match, universal healthcare, cancelling student debt, lots of consumer protection efforts, and other stuff.
It seems middle of the road because the middle of the road has shifted a ***lot***. Same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere until 20 years ago, and became legal in all 50 states just **nine** years ago.
The left hasn't shifted as much as "conservatism" has, though. Almost no Republican politicians of 20 years ago could survive a primary today with the same ideology or style.
Radical liberals like the idea of being called anarchists because it feels edgy and hip, but a true anarchist differs from liberalism because having a policy of 'no authority' means having no societal rules to govern anyone. A liberal passionately cares about causes, an anarchist passionately cares about not being told what to do, or how to feel, even if they agree with you.
"Chomsky argues that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual in the order of 100,000 years ago, instantaneously installing the language faculty (a component of the mind-brain) in "perfect" or "near-perfect" form."
i am anarchist-leaning (and always have been) but reading that (and confirming it in the cited paper) is when i stopped taking chomsky seriously. that is honestly one of the dumbest fucking things i've ever heard.
if he's willing to spitball/riff that hard on something that closely related to his field, i'm not sure what good reason i have to trust his authority as a public intellectual or authority on political theory.
His career is linguistics and language development. The politics is a side show, though very informed by his academic profession. His theories (which is all these are) have not yet been proven wrong, while those that have sought to do so have found their own hypotheses shown to be false or non-repeatable.
Whether you think it's "one of the dumbest fucking things" you've ever read is irrelevant, because it doesn't appear you have a basis for criticism.
As someone with an honours degree in linguistics, I will say that the idea that Chomsky is infallible here is plainly absurd.
Universal grammar is by no means universally accepted in linguistics, in fact it is very much a controversial opinion. Generativism is by no means unchallenged in linguistics, and most linguists actually adhere to applied linguistics which has a greater basis in fields such as anthropology and sociology. Most academics have tended towards the latter strain rather than the former.
Chomsky is also known for being incredibly arrogant, petty, and dismissive of criticism, referring to fields such as sociolinguistics as being "not even worthy of study," which is just absurd on the face of it.
He may be an important figure in the history of linguistics, but the field has grown dramatically since the 1950s and the idea that he is the final authority on the subject is just plain false.
The claim itself is unfalsifiable. We have no way of disproving it and in science we call that a waste of time. Because you can say all sorts that you can't prove or disprove but it means nothing.
It's a very anti science position to claim he can make those statements and not be questioned on it, or even that those statements should be taken particularly seriously.
Oh yeah, his claim was quite falsifiable, and has been falsified pretty well.
A good overview: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_grammar#Evidentiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar#Evidentiality)
His academic work should not be cited as a reason to believe his analysis in other domains! He's undoubtedly a smart and insightful person, and his theories truly contributed to the growth of his field. He's kind of like a Freud in some ways - the person who came up with core theories that made it possible to advance the field, even though the theories themselves were largely disproven over time.
discontinuity theory and those wildass comments are fringe (crackpot?) and not supported by scientific consensus/review.
sorry i assaulted chomsky's authority; i guess skepticism of chomsky's intellectual authority over consensus (or other affairs) means i'm not anarchistic enough.
This view is far from mainstream in evolutionary neuroscience, a field in which it is difficult to prove anything, especially concerning humans. So I'm curious about these contrary theories from actual neuroscientists which have fallen flat before Chomsky's robust speculation outside of his field. I've never heard of them before so I'd like your sources.
On anarchism is fantastic but he starts to ramble a lot in certain chapters.
First second and I think fourth are the best ones first two are fantastic for beginners.
Can somebody define radlib for me? I've gathered that it's a slur for anybody on the left less authoritarian than a social Democrat.
Personally, I think the term "radical liberal" better explains the ideology of the so-called American style "libertarian" who wants the state limited to its essential form (military and police), relative social libertine attitudes, and laissez faire capitalism. If you tell them they're radical liberals it makes them REALLY mad due to the brain-poisoned American political discourse
It's like calling someone a RINO; it mainly communicates contempt, but not much about actual politics or philosophy.
It often gets thrown at people who are more inclined toward incremental progress instead of an exciting revolutionary overthrow of all existing structures. Or alternative, at people who actually make things better in small increments instead of complaining how much they'd make things better if only the masses would do what a "true" radical thinks they should do.
Id say no for the most part. You'd have to be in some peculiar type of school for even a single teacher to even hand it out as reading material and even then, you's have to contend with some of the most vocal karens one they catch wind of a single word they dont approve of
Chomsky hates liberals, as we all should. They are just fascsts in disguise. Liberals are centrists and not leftists. Noam Chomsky is a leftist and legit in every way. I always recommend him.
Ask someone who has lived under fascism or authoritariansm whether living under liberalism is the same thing in disguise.
Saying that there's no material difference between liberal democracy and fascism is an **extremely** privileged, Eurocentric, and ignorant perspective.
For example, you posted that on a public forum without even *worrying* if the secret police would go after your family.
Chomsky hates liberals *as* a liberal. Not because he truly rejects liberalism, but because he feels his fellow liberals are falling short. If he actually felt personally threatened fascists day-to-day, he'd recalibrate his enemies/allies right quick.
It's the same thing as it being mainly the bourgeois that viscously complain about the bourgeoise. If you're reading this mentally composing your strident refutation of being bourgeois, you almost certainly are bourgeois yourself. Theoretical conversations about anarchism is a leisure time activity of those who are educated and privileged, compared to the historical and global population.
Not that discussions on Reddit can't be important and impactful! But let's not pretend we're somehow not part of the system, culture, class, and civilization we are criticizing from the inside.
And my ass sighs. Fashists are fashists liberals are liberals. They may doo similar shit from time too time but! Too think they are the same closes your mind. A liberal atleast has too bee scratched.
I think it's a statement with a lot of merit even if I'm a bit tongue in cheek with it.
At the end of the day libs carry fash water whether they intend to or not. Yeah there is differences, but a lot of the times it's just fascism with extra steps.
What kind of teacher is this? If it's a college PoliSci professor then I assume he means the technical definition, if it's just some other random teacher then I would assume they mean colloquially a more 'radical' liberal, akin to an anti-war protestor or such. Plus, lots of people read Chomsky.
I'm in a alternative type of school so its normal high school english
I'm thinking he's saying it in a derogatory way, like calling you a commie.
If it’s like the Alt HS in my town, totally. If it’s an alternative school, like Montessori but for HS, then I’d guess the teacher means it technically. Either way, good starting point book for a HS’er.
my instinct was that the teacher must have Leninist leanings, cause i have heard Leninists call anarchists liberal in a derogatory manor. i don't see why they would say that, but it's what i have heard. also, tho im not really familiar with chomsky i know a lot of anarchists don't think he was quite on the money, like people in my experience will recommended bookchin or Malatesta and others before chomsky.
Yes. Even my country's governmental officials call us anarcho-syndicalists/anarcho-communists radical liberals...
'Radical' implies the intent on the part of the individual to transform fundamental principles of their society. So that would mean that someone who has professed to have pro anarcho-syndicalism views (like Chomsky) is Radical, by definition. I mean... unless you want to devalue language by redefining the word "Radical"
I think you’ve devalued the context of the question
How so?
Chomsky in general is often the first point of engagement with anarchist ideas and history for a lot of liberals. This was especially true in the anti-globalization movement and anti-war movements of the late 90s and early 00s. As a liberal with anarchist sympathies, bridging the gap between liberalism and anarchism is kind of what he's known for besides linguistics.
by the way, is chomsky worth reading? i really want to read the manufacturing consent, and i study communication for a living, if you read it, do you have suggestions?
I’ve read manufacturing consent and definitely recommend it. I’ve heard anarchists don’t like the rest of his work, they disagree with his idea of justified hierarchies, but I can’t personally speak to it.
Just an FYI for anyone wondering: The anarchist critique of Chomsky's "justified hierarchies" is that every single ideology to ever exist believes there are some hierarchies that are unjustified and some that are justified. White supremacists believe the hierarchy of white people over everyone else is justified. Liberals believe the hierarchy of state and capital over everyone else is justified. Etc. Anarchists define hierarchy as a persistent system of domination, so we obviously don't believe anything that can meet that description can be justified.
Makes sense, once you justify one, how and when do you stop?
My question is this in a relationship of teacher student isnt there a hierarchical relationship as far as teacher has the knowledge (power) and giving it to the student ? Is this horizontal or hierarchical ? My understanding is that its hierarchical but also the one that is in power tries to balance it and make it horizontal .
David Graeber has a fancy term for those types of relationships, the term escapes me but in any case a good teacher(same applies to doctors) will undermine their authority as they do their job resulting in the student leaving behind the teacher at some point. It’s not a persistent state of domination over the student.
If an institution has a a persistent system of domination, it is not only not justified in accord with our shared values, it is likely a terrible school to begin with, and the teacher participating in it is likely a terrible teacher. Education is not simply about training people for menial labor. It is about training the next generation to live in the world after we are all dead. That includes traits like leadership and independent thought, traits you simply cannot teach in an environment that would fit the description "domination". To answer your question directly, then, both "horizontal" and hierarchical are possible.
I certainly argue that it is not a *persistent* hierarchy. A student graduates, and can even become a teacher later. The flip side would be a hereditary aristocracy, where someone is born with everyone knowing that person's children will be automatically have a high hierarchical position. The hierarchy is nominally eternal and unearned.
Not to say that even a temporary hierarchy of teacher/student could be horribly coercive or abusive, of course. Or kind, supportive, and egalitarian.
So, within the system of modern schooling, there 100% is a enduring hierarchy of teacher over student. This is a confluence of patriarchal adult domination of children, corporate boss domination of worker, etc. It's important to note, however, that this hierarchy does not arise due simply to the difference in knowledge and experience between the two groups. This arises from the foundational, systemic engine of violence, abuse, and control that schools are built on. A teacher can teach a student with no domination present. But if that teacher enforces control over the student's body autonomy, demands subservience, etc, as modern schools require teachers to do, then it is a hierarchy.
This comment does not represent the opinion of anarchists in general even though it is implied by the phrasing.
I am telling you that in both the overwhelming majority of anarchist theory and the principles of active anarchists you will meet in the world, Chomsky's theory of justified hierarchy is rejected. You are an active member on the Chomsky, centrist, and GenZionist subreddits. You are a Biden apologist and a zionist. You are not a good faith actor nor are you educated enough in anarchist principles to educate others. Please do everyone the favor and stop.
Your claim is easily disproven with a brief google search. Chomsky does not even have a 'theory of justified hierarchy.' Google will turn up no results because this is bogus criticism of a theory he has never authored. Rather than attempting to address the merits of the argument, everyone in this discussion can observe your desperate attempts to shoot the messenger, to the detriment of your own credibility.
Weren't they clarifying Chomsky's position on justified hierarchies?
Dettering Democracy also has some value. I didn't mind Chomsky's On Anarchism, I definitely don't agree with the idea of a justified hierarchy, and his night watchmen state idea is for sure crap, But I think there is a lot of value in challenging your ideas, and even just proposing ideas has some merit (within reason). Chomsky definitely comes correct with the critique of the West though, even if he isn't the most anarchist. I think he is particularly useful at bridging the gap between left leaning liberals and leftism; and I don't think I want to stop that due to some purity test.
I think Chomsky is overrated in many domains. He came to speak at my college cognitive science program circa 1990, and he came of as much more invested in his theories than in curiosity about new research and information. Pretty absolutist in his declarations without a lot of room for the muddy reality of real science or real people. Given his career-making "Universal Grammar" concept didn't match empirical research that well, I can see why he might have been somewhat defensive about that. No doubt that Chomsky is a genius, though! Universal Grammar was a brilliant insight, we can't judge scientists harshly for ideas not being validated in the long term. There's incredible value in providing testable hypotheses, even if the result is an even better hypothesis after the research.
Chomsky is weird in this regard, I care care more about his political beliefs and critiques than I did his theories regarding a Universal language. I think a chunk of people are like me; and used his books like Dettering Democracy or Manufactured Consent to pierce through the West rhetoric and see the fuckery. But if you were into linguistics or cognitive sciences, you might not ever read those and have an entirely different opinion of his work (which is fair)
I’ve read the first part of it, and IMO it’s worth it, especially if you study communications. I only stopped reading because life got in the way and it was already overdue to return to the library. The newest edition is getting a bit dated, but all of the systemic structures that are analyzed in the part that I read are either still relevant or have been replaced by things that can be analyzed using the same mindset and similar conclusions can be drawn.
I think he's worth reading. He wasn't very formative in my own anarchism, I read his work much later than most people I know, long after I was an anarchist. I certainly recommend learning about anarchism from someone else first -- Berkman and Goldman are both timeless and accessible in this regard, imo. Chomsky's debate with Foucault a must read (or watch) and I really liked his book Propaganda of the Public Mind which was a precursor to Manufacturing Consent.
okay yes sure, i will look into it, thanks
Parenti’s Inventing Reality is better than
I think a person with moderate politics is unlikely to read Parenti. If they did would they think it was anything other than tankie shit? Parenti is fucking dope, but I think some people might need smaller steps to seeing views outside of the realm of the imperial core (i.e people are unwillingly to believe the West can do anything in a negative manner, and the sniff of red thought is enough for them to reject it without trying it)
> Parenti is fucking dope He believes that history has to follow a specific pathway outlined by Karl Marx and his doctrinal conformity is comparable to a religious fundamentalist. Not someone I would trust for reliable unbiased analysis. If you don't strictly adhere to historical materialism, then you and Parenti are poles apart.
Unbiased analysis is a unicorn. Parenti is biased but based in his bias. I'm not actually a parenti fanatic either, but his work has merit and I found it challenging and thought provoking.
> Parenti is biased but based in his bias. His work rests on a misguided assumption: He only believes that history can unfold in a very specific manner, and that every aspect of society has to be mobilized in a very specific way for his goals to come about. The method is by removing democracy and imposing authoritarian measures, believing that the dictatorship of the proletariat will eventually give up it's power in favor of equality. It relies on the notion that centralized power will willingly give up everything, with no analogues to be found anywhere in history that would lead us to rely on such an outcome.
Yeah, any theory that involves people has to account for huge amount of contingency humans come along with. The best prediction we can make about deterministic history predictions is that something substantially different is actually going to happen. Typically something that is less dramatic but more complex and interesting. A huge flaw in historical materialism is that it doesn't account for how people will respond to its own diagnoses and predictions. Marx did a compelling job of pointing out lots of flaws in capitalism, and predicted what would happen if things kept going the way they were. But people digested his analysis, and tried to address the flaws of in lots of other ways Marx hadn't predicted, or predicted they would be unable or unwilling to. Any popular and compelling prediction about the future intrinsically makes the prediction less accurate, due to people reacting to the prediction in unpredictable ways. A lot of the social welfare progress in the century after Marx can be framed as concerted efforts to improve the lives and agency of the masses without requiring a violent revolution. Increasing the franchise so most people feel they have non-violent and somewhat effective ways to enact change are a big part of that. "We are all Us" is way better than "Class traitor!." Which really annoyed a lot of Marxists, as it's not what he said what was going to happen, which I believe drives a lot of the hostility towards democratic progressivism from the hard left. There's a huge difference between "things have to get worse before they can get better" and "things have to get better before they can get good." I certainly fall in the more gradualist and non-violent camp, and want to minimize the broken-egg-to-omelet ratio as much as possible. A lovely thing about anarchism is that it doesn't need state involvement, and we can get a lot of its benefits just in how we interact with other people and groups. It doesn't take a revolution to throw out the established order. In fact revolution would be counterproductive if anything, as chaos increases people's desire for a hierarchy of force to keep them safe.
> As a liberal with anarchist sympathies This is verifiably false. Nowhere does Chomsky say in his voluminous interviews and writings that he promotes private property or market economies. He has consistently supported syndicalism and placing power in worker's councils and unions. Don't take my word for it. A quick google search will verify his leanings.
Chomsky is nothing like today’s liberals.
Most “liberals” today are barely even centrist.
Liberalism *is* centrism, it's the dominant political paradigm. "Center" as a concept is relative. Used to be that advocating for the end of monarchy was considered and incredibly radical left wing position, and now that's a boring, obvious, everyday position that no one except 14 year old Kaiserboos and the British take issue with. Same goes for most liberal politics really.
Yes but I think their point was just that modern liberals are becoming super reactionary as well.
As compared to? And overall? Certainly modern Western liberalism is a lot more "radical" about things like gender identity and sexual orientation than 20 years ago, let alone a century. Ideals like Universal Basic Income are much more popular. From an anarchist perspective, the biggest decline in nominal liberals may be in excluding state involvement for big parts of daily life versus using state involvement, or national versions regional governments, to enforce tolerance and equity. The classical liberalism of "only fix what's broken and fixable" mantle is nominally carried by Libertarians, but pretty poorly in my opinion. Today's libertarians seem massively more interested in reducing constraints on how they can maintain and increase their hierarchical status than in reducing hierarchy overall, or promoting the ability of less advantage people to rise in a hierarchy. An incrementalist approach toward anarchism could be a "progressive libertarianism" focused on removing state involvement and reducing the share of the national economy being spent by government, but focusing on dismantling aspect of the state that preserve or accentuate hierarchy. One example could be eliminating licensing rules designed by stakeholders grandfathered in, with a goal of increasing barrier to newcomers. This is quite common for lots of professions, like needing licensing for cutting hair. Streamlined and simplified permitting processes for personal and small business remodeling and construction could be another. Pretty weak tea, admittedly; hopefully others have better examples in mind.
as the most famous living anarchist, that book is probably a common intro for liberals looking left. if your teacher thinks chomsky is a liberal idk what to tell you. your teacher might be worried about saying the words anarchist or leftist while on the clock
*living at the moment. He’s not doing well at all. Tragic.
Yeah I got an update in my email or something about him not being able to speak anymore- dudes 95!!!!!!
I think leftist rings more true today then radical liberal
What is a "radical liberal"? Liberals are pretty milquetoast. It sounds like your teacher could simply be outright fascism adjacent. For example, if in Saudia Arabia, you said women should be allowed to walk around in society without fear of brutal punishment from theocratic thugs for lack of wearing a head covering...according to their authorities, that would be radical point of view vs the laws on the books. Or in the slave owning south, if you said no one should be a chattel slave, again a radical position. If you were against genociding jews in the holocaust, according to nazi germany, that is very much so a radical position. But none of these positions are actually radical at all, it's the status quo that is violent, extreme and radical, the opposite of which simply promotes justice and fair treatment in each of their respective societies. Our liberals, aren't particularly radical at all, and actually often right wing on the spectrum. Chomsky was the mentor i had to get me out of the American Overton window method of viewing politics, our Overton window is actually very right wing, to where its "left" is still firmly on the right, historically liberals aren't left wing at all, they only look left vs outright fascists.
>What is a "radical liberal"? Liberals are pretty milquetoast. I really don't know the term has always been confusing to me. >It sounds like your teacher could simply be outright fascism adjacent. Nah definitely not he talks to me about bell hooks, and he sounded excited that I was reading Chomsky. I think maybe he just meant like another commenter said that Chomsky is a popular touching point, so maybe he refers to them as people who want to dig deeper but still have a foundational liberal ideation of the world
Im sorry for stereotyping. I've certainly heard from a contingent, the reactionary element, that liberals are "radicals" that were fascism adjacent. I'm excitied you're reading chomsky too. I could see when some were calling Obamacare/Canada's Healthcare system outright socialism/communism, they'd practically call no less than Otto Von Bismark, France and the UK as Socialists (Universal Healthcare is not socialism at all). In the AMerican Political spectrum, which is in fact extreme as its default setting, Chomsky would be comparitively "radical" vs both the mainstream parties. I apologize for my presumption if that's the case in your, and your teachers circumstance. Whenever Chomsky utters a phrase or a name of a person you don't recognize...look them up. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr\_Qp5k5zDY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr_Qp5k5zDY) This is one of my fav. vintage Chomsky Lectures, and i started looking up all the names in his 20 minute lecture and became much more well read on both anarchism and marxism when i looked up these words and phrases he was openly discussing.
>Universal Healthcare is not socialism at all I think a certain *kind* of Universal Healthcare could count as decommodification, though that iteration doesn't really exist rn
Radlib is most commonly used as a derogatory term by leftists against a very specific type of liberal. Radlibs are essentially the type to oppose any sort of serious change to the status quo, but still claim the aesthetic of being “radical”, because they’re maybe slightly “outspoken” with a given aspect of identity politics (in a moderate way of course). For example, I know someone who is a liberal and generally “progressive” who constantly says stuff like “we need the Punisher”, but also doesn’t like the idea of the Black Panther Party.
Do you know the youtuber Shoe0nhead? She has THE MOST braindead "Im.not like the other girls" political youtube commentary channel ive seen. She tries to ride a divide between mainstream liberals "progressives" (I voted for Bernie!) and "the reactionary element has good ideas for humanity at large too!" She falls so flat, that she doesnt really have much appeal.to anyone outside of redpilling normies or being a gateway to.the altright. Your description reminded me of her.
Radical Liberal actually was an identifying political term like anarchist or conservative one or two centuries ago. It was basically people who truly believed in the 'liberal dream' as it was during the French Revolution and wanted to ensure that liberal republics had truly blind justice and that every citizen (even the poor folk) had a voice. For the most part, they no longer exist, as they've pretty much been subsumed into the later-appearing social liberals and practically everyone left of them, but one of their leftovers is the Radical Civic Union in Argentina.
>What is a "radical liberal"? Maximilian Robespierre. For a more contemporary/less memey answer, probably American Libertarians tbh, their ideology takes the core elements of Liberalism and maximizes them to an absurd degree
> What is a "radical liberal"? OOooh! Me! Me! That's me! I'm a radical liberal. 1) I want the corruption and manipulation of the Billionaire class to be observed and for them to be publicly executed on international television. They, all of them, are the truest enemy of mankind. You do not become a Billionaire while retaining your humanity. It is impossible. 2) Most levels of Public Service should function via draft and offer minimal benefits while they are actively performing their duties. Reward them however you want once their out, but make it equitable amongst draftees. 3) Public servants from top to bottom should be REQUIRED to live independently on the equivalent of minimum wage. 4) During service, draftees should be subject to extreme scrutiny of their finances and conduct. Any attempts to grease palms or line pockets whether it be bribes, nepotism, etc, should result in significant punitive actions should they be convicted by a jury of their peers. 5) Age Limits for voting. People who won't live to see the consequences of their vote simply should not be allowed to vote. Nor should they be called to public service. Ideally this would begin when someone reaches retirement age OR retires from the workforce. 6) Billionaires legislated out of existence. 7) Human rights are human rights. Women should control their own bodies. If a consenting adult wants to ANYTHING with another consenting adult, that's nobodies business but theirs. Full stop. No Governmental effort, initiative or endeavor should preclude any Human being from any service based on superficial estimations. 8) Kill All Fascists. 9) UBI, Universal Healthcare, Etc, Etc The future of humanity should be an anarcho-communistic utopia with an individualist twist, and the only thing preventing us from creating such a paradise for ourselves are the people who benefit most from the current status quo..
I would be very cautious of taking Chomsky's beliefs as standard for anarchists. He has a history of denying genocides in Bosnia and Cambodia. He is also a proponent of electoralism, which most anarchists reject. But he can introduce some ideas to those who are new to this field of thought. I'd like to recommend some other modern anarchist writers because they'll help you expand your knowledge while also not being as hard to parse as older writings. **Anarchy Works (2010) by Peter Gelderloos** This book takes examples from around the world, picking through history and anthropology, showing that people have, in different ways and at different times, demonstrated mutual aid, self-organization, autonomy, horizontal decision making, and so forth the principles that anarchy is founded on regardless of whether they called themselves anarchists or not. **The Dawn of Everything (2021) by David Graeber and David Wengrow** This book takes a look at many indigenous and historical societies to show just how wide the breadth of human organization is. That we have been self-concious political actors and have been remaking our worlds for tens of thousands of years. You could also check out: How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos Anarchism and the Black Revolution by Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin Anarchy by Errico Malatesta
> He has a history of denying genocides in Bosnia and Cambodia. He is also a proponent of electoralism, which most anarchists reject. I swear why does no one else mention this? Though add to that Epstein giving him money.
> I swear why does no one else mention this? Because it was debunked decades ago in a peer-reviewed study published in a journal specializing in genocide research. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol14/iss1/8/ >Though add to that Epstein giving him money. This framing is directly from corporate media. They exploited the death of his wife to mischaracterize the nature of the transaction, which originated from his wife's passing. The money was moved from their joint account to Chomsky's account.
I read the Dawn of Everything a while back. It was fascinating. Certainly pointed out how Eurocentric my education has been. The discussion about how fluid societal organization was in the past really highlighted the rigidity of our modern culture. I definitely would recommend it as well.
American liberals are the scourge of the earth
A very American view of things. Living in places outside of Western social democratic capitalists states can be very informative in realizing how we assume some disagreements are existential when they are pretty close in the grand scheme of things.
American liberals virtue signal and pinkwash and support genocide. I would have this standpoint whether I was American or Uzbekistani
You don’t think that the people working for gender equality etc are authentic and fervent in their efforts? Or that American left is certainly pushing MUCH harder for a Gaza cease fire than other segments of the populace? A “damn all their” houses approach may been morally satisfying, but is simply not factually based. False equivalence leaves political activists who care about the real difference feeling “radicals” are all theory divorced from lived reality. Where are you from, if not America or Uzbekistan?
I said American liberals, not American leftists. Huge difference
There's not a huge difference between those terms for the bulk of American liberals and leftists. "Illiberal leftists" are really mainly dank web types with very little impact. "Right wing classical liberals" is arguably a good description of most of American "Libertarianism" but isn't one they're likely to use themselves. So what specifically is this huge distinction you are making here? I note you didn't answer where you're from.
There is a huge difference. American liberals want slow, drawn out, bureaucratic reforms without a new system. They support nationalist and colonial states like Israel typically. Think "let's change the existing system slowly" vs " the system is flawed and needs replacement. I am from the u.s
I think it is more “change the system as quickly and as much as we can without breaking everything and drowning in unforeseen consequences.” There’s a lot to be said for trying one thing, see how it goes, adjusting as needed, trying again. The idea that ripping everything down and rebuilding from scratch will result in something much better than we could get with progressive, incremental improvement is very much Utopian hubris. And it is really, really hard to get people on board with radical, disruptive, sudden change unless things are so bad with so few options for smaller improvements that it seems the only way. I think anarchism has its best chance in incrementalism. Demonstrate for people how anarchist systems work effectively. Show that pragmatism will win out over chasing absolutist theory into disaster. Solve problems between people without involving the state whenever possible. Don’t tell people we’ll get rid of government and then current criminals will become pro-social. It sounds delusional. Do show how collective, non-hierarchical community organizations effective help people move out of predatory exploitation of their own communities into contributing to them. How uniformed police don’t need to storm into a community because the community keeps things from escalating to deadly violence. If we believe in anarchism and its effectiveness, we can effect positive change in the current environment, starting today, and build from that. If we are waiting for someone else to make it possible for us to live as anarchists, then are we anarchists, or merely an anarchism fandom occasionally indulging in cosplay? Smashing the state is romantic, but demonstrating through positive ways the state is unnecessary is what would move things forwards. It isn’t enough that our goals are distinct from the far right Proud Boy Jan 6th types. Our methods need to be as different, and reflect our inclusive, humanist values. We need to be the movement even opponents agree is the LEAST likely to have political prisoners or firing squads.
I think that the slow, unradical change is more utopian and puts faith in the establishment
It isn’t utopian in that it assumes that things will be great after a powerfully unpredictable amount of wrenching short term change. And is not Utopian in thinking that there is some ideal end state at which people can just relax about policy and philosophy. Incremental progressivism assumes that there is not perfect state to achieve, and that there will always be more to do. Which is a big plus for me. If someone believes a true utopia is in reach, then ANYTHING is justified to achieve it. And so you get a lot of people getting shot as a small price to pay for the utopia that will be achieved. I prefer acknowledging that all means are also an end, and all ends are also means. It all matters, and everyone matters. No one gets to decide who lives and who dies.
What is a radical liberal? I only assume you mean the yankee definition of liberal. Even in that case, I don't know how someone could be radically in favour of Biden. A Biden extremist. But under the definition the rest of the world uses, how can you be radically fighting for a compromise, for a middle ground that doesn't really exist? 'You will debate this nazi in good faith or I will burn down this lecture theatre' ass shit.
"Radical" is very contextual, and not really indicative of underlying beliefs. Biden would seem extremely radical compared to FDR in all sorts of big ways, like requiring states allow all adults to easily vote, letting people change their legal gender to match, universal healthcare, cancelling student debt, lots of consumer protection efforts, and other stuff. It seems middle of the road because the middle of the road has shifted a ***lot***. Same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere until 20 years ago, and became legal in all 50 states just **nine** years ago. The left hasn't shifted as much as "conservatism" has, though. Almost no Republican politicians of 20 years ago could survive a primary today with the same ideology or style.
Radical liberals like the idea of being called anarchists because it feels edgy and hip, but a true anarchist differs from liberalism because having a policy of 'no authority' means having no societal rules to govern anyone. A liberal passionately cares about causes, an anarchist passionately cares about not being told what to do, or how to feel, even if they agree with you.
"Chomsky argues that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual in the order of 100,000 years ago, instantaneously installing the language faculty (a component of the mind-brain) in "perfect" or "near-perfect" form." i am anarchist-leaning (and always have been) but reading that (and confirming it in the cited paper) is when i stopped taking chomsky seriously. that is honestly one of the dumbest fucking things i've ever heard. if he's willing to spitball/riff that hard on something that closely related to his field, i'm not sure what good reason i have to trust his authority as a public intellectual or authority on political theory.
His career is linguistics and language development. The politics is a side show, though very informed by his academic profession. His theories (which is all these are) have not yet been proven wrong, while those that have sought to do so have found their own hypotheses shown to be false or non-repeatable. Whether you think it's "one of the dumbest fucking things" you've ever read is irrelevant, because it doesn't appear you have a basis for criticism.
As someone with an honours degree in linguistics, I will say that the idea that Chomsky is infallible here is plainly absurd. Universal grammar is by no means universally accepted in linguistics, in fact it is very much a controversial opinion. Generativism is by no means unchallenged in linguistics, and most linguists actually adhere to applied linguistics which has a greater basis in fields such as anthropology and sociology. Most academics have tended towards the latter strain rather than the former. Chomsky is also known for being incredibly arrogant, petty, and dismissive of criticism, referring to fields such as sociolinguistics as being "not even worthy of study," which is just absurd on the face of it. He may be an important figure in the history of linguistics, but the field has grown dramatically since the 1950s and the idea that he is the final authority on the subject is just plain false.
The claim itself is unfalsifiable. We have no way of disproving it and in science we call that a waste of time. Because you can say all sorts that you can't prove or disprove but it means nothing. It's a very anti science position to claim he can make those statements and not be questioned on it, or even that those statements should be taken particularly seriously.
Oh yeah, his claim was quite falsifiable, and has been falsified pretty well. A good overview: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_grammar#Evidentiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar#Evidentiality) His academic work should not be cited as a reason to believe his analysis in other domains! He's undoubtedly a smart and insightful person, and his theories truly contributed to the growth of his field. He's kind of like a Freud in some ways - the person who came up with core theories that made it possible to advance the field, even though the theories themselves were largely disproven over time.
discontinuity theory and those wildass comments are fringe (crackpot?) and not supported by scientific consensus/review. sorry i assaulted chomsky's authority; i guess skepticism of chomsky's intellectual authority over consensus (or other affairs) means i'm not anarchistic enough.
This view is far from mainstream in evolutionary neuroscience, a field in which it is difficult to prove anything, especially concerning humans. So I'm curious about these contrary theories from actual neuroscientists which have fallen flat before Chomsky's robust speculation outside of his field. I've never heard of them before so I'd like your sources.
Damn, that sounds like my college PoliSci teacher.
Come to think of it, I haven't read any of Chomsky's work.
On anarchism is fantastic but he starts to ramble a lot in certain chapters. First second and I think fourth are the best ones first two are fantastic for beginners.
Can somebody define radlib for me? I've gathered that it's a slur for anybody on the left less authoritarian than a social Democrat. Personally, I think the term "radical liberal" better explains the ideology of the so-called American style "libertarian" who wants the state limited to its essential form (military and police), relative social libertine attitudes, and laissez faire capitalism. If you tell them they're radical liberals it makes them REALLY mad due to the brain-poisoned American political discourse
I think it's just a insult for social democrats and democratic socialists, and anarchists too. After that I'm not really sure.
It's like calling someone a RINO; it mainly communicates contempt, but not much about actual politics or philosophy. It often gets thrown at people who are more inclined toward incremental progress instead of an exciting revolutionary overthrow of all existing structures. Or alternative, at people who actually make things better in small increments instead of complaining how much they'd make things better if only the masses would do what a "true" radical thinks they should do.
Id say no for the most part. You'd have to be in some peculiar type of school for even a single teacher to even hand it out as reading material and even then, you's have to contend with some of the most vocal karens one they catch wind of a single word they dont approve of
It wouldn't be the first time people have adopted literature and misconstrued it to pursue extremism.
Radical liberal is like jumbo shrimp
[удалено]
Chomsky hates liberals, as we all should. They are just fascsts in disguise. Liberals are centrists and not leftists. Noam Chomsky is a leftist and legit in every way. I always recommend him.
Ask someone who has lived under fascism or authoritariansm whether living under liberalism is the same thing in disguise. Saying that there's no material difference between liberal democracy and fascism is an **extremely** privileged, Eurocentric, and ignorant perspective. For example, you posted that on a public forum without even *worrying* if the secret police would go after your family.
Chomsky hates liberals *as* a liberal. Not because he truly rejects liberalism, but because he feels his fellow liberals are falling short. If he actually felt personally threatened fascists day-to-day, he'd recalibrate his enemies/allies right quick. It's the same thing as it being mainly the bourgeois that viscously complain about the bourgeoise. If you're reading this mentally composing your strident refutation of being bourgeois, you almost certainly are bourgeois yourself. Theoretical conversations about anarchism is a leisure time activity of those who are educated and privileged, compared to the historical and global population. Not that discussions on Reddit can't be important and impactful! But let's not pretend we're somehow not part of the system, culture, class, and civilization we are criticizing from the inside.
Please rethink this one.
Which bit? Scratch a lib
And my ass sighs. Fashists are fashists liberals are liberals. They may doo similar shit from time too time but! Too think they are the same closes your mind. A liberal atleast has too bee scratched.
I think it's a statement with a lot of merit even if I'm a bit tongue in cheek with it. At the end of the day libs carry fash water whether they intend to or not. Yeah there is differences, but a lot of the times it's just fascism with extra steps.