Noam Chomsky's political writings are extremely useful for any understanding of the crimes of US imperialism. But his scientific work, whose political implications Chomsky denies, have been coming under increasing criticism from the left.
Recently an academic Marxist author managed to get an interesting critique of Chomsky into The Times Literary Supplement. It raises some interesting concerns.
Noam Chomsky has yet to respond publicly to Hawkes' article. But if readers wish to know his views, Noam is renowned for responding to every e-mail he receives at [email protected]
When I emailed him, he sent me a very interesting reply - although I am still disappointed at his reticence to respond in public to such left-wing criticisms of his science.
I was going to say something along these lines but revol got there first and saved me the trouble.
Yeah I have to say this article isn't in the least convincing.
I actually just picked up The Science of Language, it's alright so far.
In terms of political readings of universal grammar, it's possible to view it in a politically sympathetic manner as not being reactionary. For Chomsky the idea of a human universal, the commonality of grammar, is no more reactionary than any sort of tabula rasa theory. And so far, UG still seems on solid ground. Daniel Everett's work with Piraha doesn't refute UG at all, despite Everett's insistence that it does.
I know that Hedgehog doesn't necessarily agree with Everett either, in fact, I'd like to hear his criticisms also.
I certainly wouldn't blame Chomsky for not wasting his time (or brain,especially) on responding to yet another shit-head Marxist dogmatist clown.
Wow, great article. Yet another good reason for rejecting Chonksyism. For me Chomsky was good as a sort of gate-way drug (a weird social-democratic type) into radicalism, but over the years I came to see the limits of his watered-down politics.
The issue of empiricism being a fundamentally conservative philosophy should be discussed more. Especially in the anglo-phone regions where Lockean idea's of tabula rasa and private property reign supreme. I've read Chomsky try to reconcile Lockean idea's of private property with socialism, but it makes for a self-contradictory and half-backed argument. People should reject Lockean notions and take a section look at empiricism and positivism too.
kingzog
I've never run across him endorsing Lockean property relations. You got a source for this claim?
Kingzog:
Ethos:
not endorsing but reconciling(or at least attempting to). Locke says that by mixing ones labor with the earth, one thereby earns right to it. Chomsky claims this is a good argument for workers controlling production; they work with the machines and therefore they have a right to own them. For a number of reasons this is a problematic argument. Chomsky, however, has argued along these lines a number of times.
I don't have the time to back this up with citations, unfortunately. I thought it was a well-known fact amongst Chomskyites. I used to think the exact same way.
kingzog
If it's a well known fact it shouldn't take too long to find a source, mate. I'm pressing you on this because I've always heard him explain anarchism, or the kind of anarchism he sees himself being a 'fellow traveler' of (as he would qualify it), as an ideology that combats centralized power structures. As he says in the "Jay Interview"*,
So, I don't see why he would then turn around and use Lockean property relations, as you claim he does, when he has a legitimate argument in favor of workers self-management set up already and if he does try to reconcile the two I'd like to know it.
-----------------------------
*http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm
haha. What does this have to do with anything:
I don't see how that would deny an idea that mixing ones labor with the means of production gives one a right to controlling it. I understood Chomsky as subverting Locke's idea of homesteading. I don't think it works, however.
I don't want to have to look through his writings and literally dozens and dozens of speech's to find it.
Is it really that hard to believe?
kingzog
I pointed out how that relates when I wrote the paragraph following the quotation.
Ethos
Again, if it's so readily available it shouldn't take that much time to find (the source for my post took less than 30 seconds to find and I'm not particularly familiar with his writings when it comes to anarchism). Don't take my posts as combative in nature as I'm not concerned with defending Chomsky's anarchism from the standpoint of a devotee. I just like my critiques to be well-founded.
It's probably in the book Chomsky on Anarchism, if i have time I'll try to find you some juicy stuff. I know he has made this argument in talks as well.
The main point of my criticism, though, is that revolutionaries should take a second look at empiricism and positivism. Chomsky most certainly comes from the tradition of Galileo and Locke- I doubt he would deny this.
Chomsky has also expressed his admiration for what he see's as an implicit anti-capitalism in the likes of Adam Smith.
Again, do you really think it is that far-fetched to believe that Chomsky would try to reconcile Lockean idea's of property with socialism by claiming that workers 'homestead' the means of production? Is it really that far-fetched?
Double Post.
kingzog
http://libcom.org/library/chomsky-anarchism
Let me know where you found it. I did word searches for "Locke", "means of production" and "workers" and did not find him making that argument.
This I know. There's actually a thread in the "theory" section of the forums that touches on the relation he emphasizes between classical liberalism and anarchism.
He does like writings in political philosophy from enlightenment figures, but I can't just take your word for it and call your claim a fact until you show me something that backs it up.
i'm not going to waste my time looking through all his talks, etc. i don't think it's unreasonable to believe he would make this argument.
but yeah, u don't have accept my claim as a fact or take my word for it. I'll concede he may not have made this particular argument.
I think mixing, or reconciling, classical liberalism with socialism-- of any variety-- is very problematic, in any case (like claiming Adam Smith's thought). This is what Chomsky does in general.
Alternatively, I could change my basis of criticism of Chomsky reconciling socialism with Lockean 'homesteading' and just change it to his general emphasis on classical liberalism being an ancestor to socialism. I'm sure there are lots of particular examples of this-- besides my claim about Locke-- in the theory post you just mentioned! Probably also in the Chomsky on Anarchism book! I'm sure it's a goldmine of the mixing of classical liberalism with Chomsky's brand of 'socialism' examples.
I always interpreted Chomsky's referencing of Smith as a way of showing how proponents of liberalism are inconsistent with the views of those whom they glorify so much as their ideological founders, such as Smith, who himself could see certain limits of liberal ideology. I always felt he was merely playing the liberal's own ideology against him/her. Although, he never explicitly said that -- just my impression.
However, it's true, he does seem to believe that the logical conclusion one would inevitably draw from liberalism (ideology) if one took it to its logical ends is libertarian socialism, or at least some general, abstract sort of anarchism. And when I say liberal ideology, or when he says it, I think he means the highest abstract values it seems to want to promote -- which is where the problem lies, obviously. Nonetheless, I think he's doing something worthwhile by making such an argument, as it's drawing in many "uninitiated", so to speak, to the cause, exposing a lot of people to libertarian socialism in an ideological context they can understand (and, all the while, exposing the hypocrisy of "conservative" liberals).
And from Chomsky, I think they can move forward in a good fashion, as I feel like I have. Furthermore, I feel that, although I find myself very far away from liberalism and constantly moving further, I feel no shame in recognizing and utilizing certain tenants of liberalism -- I am not dogmatically opposed to it; I can recognize truth where it lies -- I hope I can, anyways. And this is coming from someone who literally disagrees with 99% of Chomsky's philosophical foundations -- that is to say, I have more intellectually in common with someone like Foucault.
I think it's worth pointing out that much of Chomsky's argument for libertarian socialism, that seem to be utilizing liberalism, can also be found in Rudolf Rocker. I'm thinking, in particular, his "Anarchsyndicalism: Theory and Practice" (which, I think Chomsky did the intro for, though I might be mistaken -- I'll have to check my copy). Though Rocker is slightly more Marxist in his thought.