Noam Chomsky : 'Losing' the world

[Enki]

I like how people use the fact that talking about American Imperialism is cliche as though that makes the notion not actually true.

The book exchange at where I worked in Chicagoland had a large pile of old Ramparts magazine. That how I first came to read Noam Chomsky.
I also amusingly recall a similar pile of Town and Country right beside Ramparts.

Ramparts was forever breathlessly denouncing American Imperialism and gleefully forecasting the imminent demise of the US and capitalism.

Chomsky has updated his schtick, now not just the Vietnam War, but also the Iraq and Afghan Wars.
No longer is pollution and resource depletion going to kill us all, but supposed man-made global warming.

However the Chomskian schtick remains the same.

On the other hand, US imperialism is as active and aggressive as ever while Ramparts went bust in 1975.

Yeah...the glacial activities of state take a couple of decades to be realized...imagine that!

I think Noam Chomsky is going to be proven correct. Hell it's pretty mainstream to think that America is running up on the iceberg these days

[Typhoon]

I like how people use the fact that talking about American Imperialism is cliche as though that makes the notion not actually true.

The book exchange at where I worked in Chicagoland had a large pile of old Ramparts magazine. That how I first came to read Noam Chomsky.
I also amusingly recall a similar pile of Town and Country right beside Ramparts.

Ramparts was forever breathlessly denouncing American Imperialism and gleefully forecasting the imminent demise of the US and capitalism.

Chomsky has updated his schtick, now not just the Vietnam War, but also the Iraq and Afghan Wars.
No longer is pollution and resource depletion going to kill us all, but supposed man-made global warming.

However the Chomskian schtick remains the same.

On the other hand, US imperialism is as active and aggressive as ever while Ramparts went bust in 1975.

Yeah...the glacial activities of state take a couple of decades to be realized...imagine that!

I think Noam Chomsky is going to be proven correct. Hell it's pretty mainstream to think that America is running up on the iceberg these days

Well, if history is any guide, he will eventually be correct.

I doubt the value of mainstream thinking as a predictor of the future.

Recall that mainstream pundits were caught with their pants down around their ankles when the former SU collapsed.

[Ibrahim]

Chomsky is pretty '90's. I don't think he's getting any more converts at this point, and people sympathetic to the America-as-defacto-empire line of conversation have moved on to other writers and thinkers. The undergrad crowd that Chomsky sells to seems to be enamored with Ron Paul at the moment.

You're so pretentious.

You have to maintain high standards for scholarship or you get the kind of middlebrow pseudo-intellectualism that passes for too much of American discourse today. Gingrich is able to refer to himself as some kind of intellectual heavyweight without people cracking up (half of them anyway) and many of the people eulogizing Hitchens spoke of him like he was the greatest mind who ever lived instead of a suck up, kick down op-ed columnist with an accent. Then there are the so-called "New Atheists" and these various conservative think tank whores who all head a website called an "institute." Its necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff. Chomsky, for the last 15 years anyway, is definitely in that world of public or media intellectuals, and should be grouped with them.

[Ibrahim]

Oh, and he is basically right about America an empire, but predicting the demise of empires has %100 success rate.

[noddy]

i read manufacturing consent when he first became all the rage and it just annoyed me.

so simplistic and conspiracy laden, always blaming "manipulative elites" and completely ignoring the simple fact that after spending all my day listening to pompous gits in suits dribbling self important lavender, i might prefer boobies and bombs on the tv than more pompous gits in suits.

ive since read a bit more of his stuff, tried to skim read this, and had the same reaction... a sheltered man in his own tiny little world, he seems to really struggle with humans like most academics.

[Enki]

Chomsky is pretty '90's. I don't think he's getting any more converts at this point, and people sympathetic to the America-as-defacto-empire line of conversation have moved on to other writers and thinkers. The undergrad crowd that Chomsky sells to seems to be enamored with Ron Paul at the moment.

You're so pretentious.

You have to maintain high standards for scholarship or you get the kind of middlebrow pseudo-intellectualism that passes for too much of American discourse today. Gingrich is able to refer to himself as some kind of intellectual heavyweight without people cracking up (half of them anyway) and many of the people eulogizing Hitchens spoke of him like he was the greatest mind who ever lived instead of a suck up, kick down op-ed columnist with an accent. Then there are the so-called "New Atheists" and these various conservative think tank whores who all head a website called an "institute." Its necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff. Chomsky, for the last 15 years anyway, is definitely in that world of public or media intellectuals, and should be grouped with them.

That sort of high standard for scholarship is just a matter of opinion. Remember, people think of Schopenhauer as an intellectual heavyweight and he was saying the same sort of bullshit mysogyny of anyone of his time. High standards for scholarship pretty much depend on whether or not the person doing the grading agrees with the scholar.

[Ibrahim]

Chomsky is pretty '90's. I don't think he's getting any more converts at this point, and people sympathetic to the America-as-defacto-empire line of conversation have moved on to other writers and thinkers. The undergrad crowd that Chomsky sells to seems to be enamored with Ron Paul at the moment.

You're so pretentious.

You have to maintain high standards for scholarship or you get the kind of middlebrow pseudo-intellectualism that passes for too much of American discourse today. Gingrich is able to refer to himself as some kind of intellectual heavyweight without people cracking up (half of them anyway) and many of the people eulogizing Hitchens spoke of him like he was the greatest mind who ever lived instead of a suck up, kick down op-ed columnist with an accent. Then there are the so-called "New Atheists" and these various conservative think tank whores who all head a website called an "institute." Its necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff. Chomsky, for the last 15 years anyway, is definitely in that world of public or media intellectuals, and should be grouped with them.

That sort of high standard for scholarship is just a matter of opinion. Remember, people think of Schopenhauer as an intellectual heavyweight and he was saying the same sort of bullshit mysogyny of anyone of his time. High standards for scholarship pretty much depend on whether or not the person doing the grading agrees with the scholar.

Scholarship has a peer review process and all that, but yes opinions are indeed subjective. Chomsky is increasingly writing for a popular audience, and my point was not about agreeing with Chomsky or not, which I did on his basic premise.

[AzariLoveIran]

The book exchange at where I worked in Chicagoland had a large pile of old Ramparts magazine. That how I first came to read Noam Chomsky.
I also amusingly recall a similar pile of Town and Country right beside Ramparts.

Ramparts was forever breathlessly denouncing American Imperialism and gleefully forecasting the imminent demise of the US and capitalism.

Chomsky has updated his schtick, now not just the Vietnam War, but also the Iraq and Afghan Wars.
No longer is pollution and resource depletion going to kill us all, but supposed man-made global warming.

However the Chomskian schtick remains the same.

On the other hand, US imperialism is as active and aggressive as ever while Ramparts went bust in 1975.

Chomsky represent, follows, propagates, personifies a "school" for civilization and culture

Vietnam War, Iraq and Afghan Wars just minor case study for him

.. "forever breathlessly denouncing American Imperialism and gleefully forecasting the imminent demise of the US and capitalism" .. well, colonel, seems pretty much all Ramparts's (an American political and literary magazine, published from 1962 through 1975) predictions pretty much realized .. America not same America as in 1965, in retreat, bankrupt (financially and morally), divided, polarized.



.

[Apollonius]

Remember, people think of Schopenhauer as an intellectual heavyweight and he was saying the same sort of bullshit mysogyny of anyone of his time.

Schopenhauer isn’t remembered for his bullshit misogyny. He’s remembered chiefly as one of the first European writers to have discovered, had an appreciation for, and written about Indian religion and philosophy.


Chomsky’s contribution was in linguistics, and to a certain extent, in theories of mass communication. I’ve never found any of his writing on current affairs to be original or even well written, but this Asia Times piece hit perhaps a new low for him. It rambles all over the place. Kennedy’s arrogance backed by American stupidity, China’s demographic time bomb, India is corrupt, rain falls from clouds, and the tropical noonday sun is too hot. Why not just say, “the world is a genuflecting mess”, and be done with it.


I agree with Ibrahim; even people who used to know how to maintain a train of thought for five or six pages, seem to be losing that art. You can blame audiences too. They have even shorter attention spans.

I also agree with Parodite. Israel doesn’t live up to Chomsky’s standards. The whole goddamned human race (except for a few noble savages) doesn’t live up Chomsky’s standards.

I do him one better. Chomsky doesn’t live up to mine.

[Simple Minded]

Schopenhauer isn’t remembered for his bullshit misogyny. He’s remembered chiefly as one of the first European writers to have discovered, had an appreciation for, and written about Indian religion and philosophy.

Chomsky’s contribution was in linguistics, and to a certain extent, in theories of mass communication. I’ve never found any of his writing on current affairs to be original or even well written, but this Asia Times piece hit perhaps a new low for him. It rambles all over the place. Kennedy’s arrogance backed by American stupidity, China’s demographic time bomb, India is corrupt, rain falls from clouds, and the tropical noonday sun is too hot. Why not just say, “the world is a genuflecting mess”, and be done with it.

I agree with Ibrahim; even people who used to know how to maintain a train of thought for five or six pages, seem to be losing that art. You can blame audiences too. They have even shorter attention spans.

I also agree with Parodite. Israel doesn’t live up to Chomsky’s standards. The whole goddamned human race (except for a few noble savages) doesn’t live up Chomsky’s standards.

I do him one better. Chomsky doesn’t live up to mine.

Apollonius, Very well put!! You are an individual of discerning taste.... at least on this point where we agree.

Chompsky spouts the classic, timeless utopian spewl of what the world could be, if you could only get rid of all those fuckin idiots who are too stupid to recognize his genius, and too uncooperative to conform with his ideal of human behavior.

With just a little more time, more money, more guns, and a few thugs who are willing to crack eggs..... I'll serve up a utopian omelet so big no one will ever be hungary again!!!! Them free range eggs might taste a bit like Soylent Green though......

[Enki]

Remember, people think of Schopenhauer as an intellectual heavyweight and he was saying the same sort of bullshit mysogyny of anyone of his time.

Schopenhauer isn’t remembered for his bullshit misogyny. He’s remembered chiefly as one of the first European writers to have discovered, had an appreciation for, and written about Indian religion and philosophy.


Chomsky’s contribution was in linguistics, and to a certain extent, in theories of mass communication. I’ve never found any of his writing on current affairs to be original or even well written, but this Asia Times piece hit perhaps a new low for him. It rambles all over the place. Kennedy’s arrogance backed by American stupidity, China’s demographic time bomb, India is corrupt, rain falls from clouds, and the tropical noonday sun is too hot. Why not just say, “the world is a genuflecting mess”, and be done with it.


I agree with Ibrahim; even people who used to know how to maintain a train of thought for five or six pages, seem to be losing that art. You can blame audiences too. They have even shorter attention spans.

I also agree with Parodite. Israel doesn’t live up to Chomsky’s standards. The whole goddamned human race (except for a few noble savages) doesn’t live up Chomsky’s standards.

I do him one better. Chomsky doesn’t live up to mine.

I think y'all scholarly types have a delusion as to how high the standards ever were in the past. Standards are by no means lower than ever before, there is just a much more democratized access publishing. The Chomsky's of the world had less opportunity to publish their glurge. And likely the selection process that winnows out the glurge of a Schopenhauer leaves you with his better more cogent works.