• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Anarchy

Amebix said:
It's for our own good that we aren't allowed to steal someone else's car, because some people given the chance would do exactly that. Without a specific value structure in place to teach people how to live in a large society, people would revert to animal/tribal behavior and nothing would ever get done. Or they'd kill each other (which does happen even today between primitive tribes, or just look at any premodern tribal system - it is war all the time).

Oh yeah just for your information, cause you seem to think we live in a crime free society, the stuff you described happens every day. Our culture is founded on murder and theft.

I can see that you have a very bleak outlook of humanity.

Studies indicate that drug usage would not increase if legalization were to occur. What gives you the idea that freeing law structures would automatically result in them being broken, as you imply? And what gives you the notion that anarchy & its own ways to dealing with that issue would still result in "tribal behavior"?

Seriously, where do you base your opinions from?
 
Oh yeah just for your information, cause you seem to think we live in a crime free society, the stuff you described happens every day. Our culture is founded on murder and theft.
Modern society is FAR less violent than certain tribal societies. Were there some very peaceful groups of pre-modern man? Sure, but on the whole it was WAR, on a much larger scale than we know war today. It was a man's duty, generally, to become a warrior, for the expressed purpose of raiding and taking over rival tribes. I'm kinda glad we don't do that anymore!

I can see that you have a very bleak outlook of humanity.
No, I just don't see anything special about humanity that separates it from other animal life, other than it's massive intelligence. Humans need structure, and order. Some people need to be told what is right and wrong, if not all people. In pre-modern tribal life, it would be considered appropriate to kill a rival clan member and steal all his stuff (including women). Today, it is against the law.

Do you think it is for some other reason (other than the law) that we don't do that anymore?

I am extremely greatful that we have a police force and a criminal justice system. That institution is one of many that forms the basis of modern society. We establish a set of rules, and we all agree to abide by them. That's what enables modern society to flourish.

Someone tried to say that lack of hierarchy does not mean lack of organization. Well, what is organization if not hierarchy?

Hierarchy evolves naturally. Those who are best at organizing and seeing the big picture....GASP...are the same people who ARE organizing and implementing the big picture (entrepreneurs, inventors, visionaries).

A CEO has a secretary. The CEO has that power because he spent 30 years working his way up the hierarchical ladder. He is in a "power position" over his secretary. But she is there voluntarily as well. What exactly is wrong with that? Is this arrangement inherently "evil" just because there is a difference in the amount of decision-making power each person possesses?

Some people have to have more decision-making power precisely because some people are BETTER at making long-range decisions!

In the classroom, the teacher has the power. In the board room, the CEO. In the lab, the scientist. In the hospital, the doctor. At the worksite, the foreman.

Anarchists would have a much better point if we were sitting here in feudal times having this discussion. But instead we live in a free democratic society, and here are the anarchists crying wolf at the evil "hierarchy", all the while millions of people wake up every morning with more control over their lives than most people have had on this planet, ever. Ironically, it is the hierarchical nature of our society that GIVES us that freedom we love so much.
 
Last edited:
protovack said:
The idea that there was "no coercion" in paleolithic society is laughable. There is always coercion, even if it is the weather determining where you go to find food or water. Thus the hierarchy was that nature was above man. I would bet that in these paleolithic tribes, there was a man who was in command of where they went, and what they did when trouble erupted. This is natural human behavior. Please stop bringing up the pre-modern man as this wonderful "evidence" that we can live without any sort of hierarchy.

For the primitive man, resources were a limiting factor in their freedom. Today, the hierarchal form of capitalism is the limiting factor, as resources are privatized completely, leaving many in the cold.

Here is the problem with anarchists: they seem to have an irrational aversion to hierarchy. While most people would agree that too much hierarchy is bad, most normal people would also agree that to achieve a stable society, you have to follow a certain minimum set of rules that are adhered to by everyone.

Many (if not all) schools of anarchist thought AGREE with this statement. How else do you expect anarchy to fulfill its agenda? How else would this philosophy exist in reality?

It's for our own good that we aren't allowed to steal someone else's car, because some people given the chance would do exactly that. Without a specific value structure in place to teach people how to live in a large society, people would revert to animal/tribal behavior and nothing would ever get done. Or they'd kill each other (which does happen even today between primitive tribes, or just look at any premodern tribal system - it is war all the time).

What specific value structures are there that teach people how to live in society? Oh, you mean enforced hierarchal capitalism that teaches youths that they may never get a job in a field that their personality and desires may fit into and instead must work for the specific interests of the man on top of a pyramid of economic opportunity? That money is the at the top of the values in any given community?

And how do you know that people would "kill each other" more so than today? How many wars are taking place right as I type this? Crime is all around us, despite the existence of your beloved police.

Without hierarchy there would be no modern society. That's what modern society IS - Hierarchy. Without it, we'd have no computers, cars, or internet. All these things get built by regular people playing by the rules, not by disparate small groups of anarchists opposed to any sort of "hierarchy."

And you know this, through comparative studies of the evolution of societies in anarchist and hierarchal philosophies, right?

Why do you keep insisting that anarchy has no rules? Devil's advocate: hierarchy can limit rules and freedoms. Who can say what an anarchist society could have produced instead of hierarchy?!

What anarchists seem to not realize is that in the real world, like in business and research, most everything is done in a team (not a hierarchical command line). Business has already figured out that strict hierarchies are NOT efficient. What works is to group people together into teams and then let them solve problems with their innate creativity.

Yes, they are realizing how efficient anarchy is. Why don't you? Of course, this doesn't stop businesses from using capitalistic hierarchy from exploiting cheap, physical labor, as anarchy is not as cost-friendly in that area.

An anarchist looks at only the most "official" institutions of society (police) and quickly determines that there is "too much" hierarchy today and that things would be much better off if nobody was ever told what to do ever. Well, sorry, but that is just not true. And it won't become more true just by "wishing" it was. The real world is out there, they just don't want to see it. They stop their analysis at the security guard at the back door, not realizing that just inside there is a team of people working on something in a completely non-hierarchical way. And further, they don't see that it's because of the security guard that those people can continue to work away on that cure for cancer or that new green building.

Anarchists do not believe that "it would be better if nobody was ever told what to do ever". In fact, many schools of anarchist thought depend on the assumption that everyone could agree on rules to level the playing field. Since you agree that everyone needs rules, I don't understand why you disagree with this area. Rule-following is not hierarchal, if the rules are issued by everyone.

On your view of anarchists: Maybe some idiots that claimed themselves anarchists, and thus gave you a thickheaded impression of the philosophy (or maybe no idiots were involved...), but seriously, help yourself and stop making such biased, inconsiderate generalizations on anarchist thought! It is seriously degrading, but only to your image of knowledge . Have you ever read a philosophical text on anarchist thought? Because I honestly doubt it (ad hom, I suppose, but so are his attacks on anarchy/anarchists).

I also think the anarchist builds up a perfectionistic view of man. They have an ideal of man that says we are altruistic, non-violent, and non-competetive. In reality, people are very competetive. And we are altruistic to a certain degree, but not before we get the resources we need. And also, individual people are DIFFERENT. Some people are great at coming up with ideas about how to make things. But sometimes these same people suck at gathering together all the right people to make it into reality. That's why at a building site you have a bunch of workers who know the mechanical stuff, and then project managers who know all the contractors and have the big picture stuff all figured out.

1. We are competitive - some anarchists agree with this statement, and thus embrace the idea of a non-hierarchal free market. They hold that competition is natural, yet the flaw in capitalism is that there is not an equal exchange in production value and commodity value. Therefore, only changing this facet will allow and encourage competition, and will also allow more of this horizontal business strategy that you endorse above.

2. If we are only altruistic after getting what we need, then people aren't altruistic because they are lacking resources. As per above, I claim that hierarchy is to blame for preventing proper resource allocation. So then, you are in agreement with anarchist thought.

3. People are different, yes. That is why anarcho-communism holds that people should indeed "get what they need". Capitalism only gets those people with money (opportunity) what they need, at the cost of those who lack money.

.There is a REAL distinction between people, that sets apart managers, scientists, mechanics, executives, etc. People have different personality types. This necessitates hierarchy because not everybody can do everything. Big, complex jobs require an interplay of people and a degree of organization. Often this role is assumed by the "organizers" and I'm glad we have them (I'm not one of them, that's for sure).

Anarchy would require moderate of organization by everyone. This is where you and anarchy disagree, as they would instead call the ones who profit off of the great organizing as labor thieves.

I don't mind being told what to do by someone if they share the same goal as I do. And in a modern hierarchical society, everyone does share the same goals (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

Your ideals are then, attune to those of anarchy. The philosophy holds that everyone shares the same goals, therefore everyone should be equal in the means to those goals. This means that everyone should follow some set of rules in order for this to happen.

And I'm sure the anarchists are thinking right now, "He just doesn't get it." But let me tell you, I get it. I've read through the entire Anarchist FAQ and at one time considered myself an anarchist.

Wow, an FAQ. Some real scholarly work there. Now I really do not feel bad about my ad homs regarding your knowledge.

But then I discovered people, and the many ways in which they differ from one and other. My message to anyone that is an anarchist is that life is messy. People aren't all alike. We need structure and order to be able to accomplish great things.

Don't ASSUME that the people giving the orders have different values than those taking the orders.

Don't ASSUME that it's always the same people giving the orders. We are all in command in some part of our lives.

Don't ASSUME that hierarchy is something to be avoided. It is natural, and it works when all actors have shared values.

Again, you know that structure is necessary how? Why do YOU assume?
 
Aight lets check the dictionary:

Organization:

Something made up of elements with varied fuctions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions

A structure through which individuals cooperate systematically to conduct business

Alright now how about hierarchy:

Hierarchy:

Any system of persons or things ranked one above the other.
 
Something made up of elements with varied fuctions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions

Hierarchy:

Any system of persons or things ranked one above the other.

Hierarchy is a form of organization under your definition. You should clarify what you mean by "ranked" though, and why exactly a "ranking" system is not an acceptable form of organization.

I mean why not, if anything, a ranking system? "I do more work, I'm going to get more than you" seems to be the fairest arrangement to me. Why is a rank so bad if you are in control of it?

What if you are not? Well, a giraffe cannot "blame" it's parents for having short necks...it just does.

Difference is, in a capitalist society you can "lengthen your neck." But you wouldn't if you weren't told that you could.
 
Last edited:
B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?
First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism challenges. While it is customary for some opponents of anarchism to assert that anarchists oppose all kinds of authority, the reality of the situation is more complex. While anarchists have, on occasion, stated their opposition to "all authority" a closer reading quickly shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, what we tend to call hierarchy (see section H.4 for more details). This can be seen when Bakunin stated that "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." [Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 33]

Other forms of authority are more acceptable to anarchists, it depends whether the authority in question becomes a source of power over others or not. That is the key to understanding the anarchist position on authority -- if it is hierarchical authority, then anarchists are against it. . The reason is simple:

"[n]o one should be entrusted with power, inasmuch as anyone invested with authority must . . . become an oppressor and exploiter of society." [Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 249]

This distinction between forms of authority is important. As Erich Fromm pointed out, "authority" is "a broad term with two entirely different meanings: it can be either 'rational' or 'irrational' authority. Rational authority is based on competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person subjected to it." [To Have or To Be, pp. 44-45] The same point was made by Bakunin over 100 years earlier when he indicated the difference between authority and "natural influence." For Bakunin, individual freedom "results from th[e] great number of material, intellectual, and moral influences which every individual around him [or her] and which society . . . continually exercise . . . To abolish this mutual influence would be to die." Consequently, "when we reclaim the freedom of the masses, we hardly wish to abolish the effect of any individual's or any group of individual's natural influence upon the masses. What we wish is to abolish artificial, privileged, legal, and official influences." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 140 and p. 141]

It is, in other words, the difference between taking part in a decision and listening to alternative viewpoints and experts ("natural influence") before making your mind up and having a decision made for you by a separate group of individuals (who may or may not be elected) because that is their role in an organisation or society. In the former, the individual exercises their judgement and freedom (i.e. is based on rational authority). In the latter, they are subjected to the wills of others, to hierarchical authority (i.e. is based on irrational authority). This is because rational authority "not only permits but requires constant scrutiny and criticism . . . it is always temporary, its acceptance depending on its performance." The source of irrational authority, on the other hand, "is always power over people . . . Power on the one side, fear on the other, are always the buttresses on which irrational authority is built." Thus former is based upon "equality" while the latter "is by its very nature based upon inequality." [Erich Fromm, Man for Himself, pp. 9-10]

This crucial point is expressed in the difference between having authority and being an authority. Being an authority just means that a given person is generally recognised as competent for a given task, based on his or her individual skills and knowledge. Put differently, it is socially acknowledged expertise. In contrast, having authority is a social relationship based on status and power derived from a hierarchical position, not on individual ability. Obviously this does not mean that competence is not an element for obtaining a hierarchical position; it just means that the real or alleged initial competence is transferred to the title or position of the authority and so becomes independent of individuals, i.e. institutionalised (or what Bakunin termed "official").

This difference is important because the way people behave is more a product of the institutions in which we are raised than of any inherent nature. In other words, social relationships shape the individuals involved. This means that the various groups individuals create have traits, behaviours and outcomes that cannot be understood by reducing them to the individuals within them. That is, groups consist not only of individuals, but also relationships between individuals and these relationships will affect those subject to them. For example, obviously "the exercise of power by some disempowers others" and so through a "combination of physical intimidation, economic domination and dependency, and psychological limitations, social institutions and practices affect the way everyone sees the world and her or his place in it." This, as we discuss in the next section, impacts on those involved in such authoritarian social relationships as "the exercise of power in any institutionalised form -- whether economic, political or sexual -- brutalises both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised." [Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, p. 41]

Authoritarian social relationships means dividing society into (the few) order givers and (the many) order takers, impoverishing the individuals involved (mentally, emotionally and physically) and society as a whole. Human relationships, in all parts of life, are stamped by authority, not liberty. And as freedom can only be created by freedom, authoritarian social relationships (and the obedience they require) do not and cannot educate a person in freedom -- only participation (self-management) in all areas of life can do that. "In a society based on exploitation and servitude," in Kropotkin's words, "human nature itself is degraded" and it is only "as servitude disappears" shall we "regain our rights." [Anarchism, p. 104]

either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . [and] have a voice in the council, in a word he will become an associate.

"In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 215-216]
 
Last edited:
proto do you understand all the bad things that stem from capitalism and hierarchy?
 
Last edited:
awww come on i was having fun... someone post something...
 
Last edited:
Just to clear up some misconceptions, Protovack is quite a bit more than passingly familiar with anarchism. He knows his shit, but concludes differently from "us". And, also, "the" FAQ is just as scholarly as anything I've written. It's really top-notch.

My apologies if the below is redundant with others' thoughts...

>>
The idea that there was "no coercion" in paleolithic society is laughable. There is always coercion, even if it is the weather determining where you go to find food or water. Thus the hierarchy was that nature was above man. I would bet that in these paleolithic tribes, there was a man who was in command of where they went, and what they did when trouble erupted. This is natural human behavior. Please stop bringing up the pre-modern man as this wonderful "evidence" that we can live without any sort of hierarchy.>>

Some paleolithic groups were characterized by rigid hierarchies of the sort you describe. Some were not, led only by temporary experts (I'm drawing primarily off the anthropological work of David Graeber). I don't think you can paint paleolithic life with such a broad brush.

The crucial question, then, is whether coercive hierarchy is necessary for mastery of natural forces. You seem to assume that it is...our main point of discussion is whether it is.

>>
How is it an externalized body? We both know someone from our high school class that became a cop. My cousin's boyfriend is a cop. A police department forms itself to protect those who play by the rules from those who don't. Any anarchist society would form a similar body.>>

A police department is external in the sense that the rules it employs are created apart from the public at large, even though the majority of us would likely agree with MOST of these rules. It is also separate in the sense that the mechanics of the application of those rules occurs apart from the populace at large. The community holds no direct power over judging the efficacy or fairness of the police.

I think things would operate a bit differently if there was a self-defense cooperative involving wider strata in the community.

>>I think our hierarchical society serves society as a whole. If my house catches on fire, people come to put the fire out. If someone steals my shit, I get it back. How is that not serving constituents. If the police were actually in the business of stealing my shit, then I'd have to agree with you. But they aren't.>>

My statement was a bit strong. Often times, hierarchical institutions work for us. Many other times they don't. I think though, looking at contemporary society, the main site of hierarchical rule is within the world-capitalist economy, in particular centers of capitalist production in the global South.

>>
A factory occupation is a futile attempt to control something that cannot be controlled: the flow of capital. The only factories that get "occupied" are old out-of-date facilities that need to be scrapped anyway.>>

Er...why would factory occupations disproportionately target dilapidated factories? Why should we assume that factories usually close because they are in want of better productive technologies? Firms very often close because there is cheaper labor to be found elsewhere, which is a mark of increasing exploitation.

Finally, why would the flow of capital be a "natural force"?

>>most normal people would also agree that to achieve a stable society, you have to follow a certain minimum set of rules that are adhered to by everyone.>>

Anarchists, too, would agree. They just think that these social norms should be agreed upon by the community at large, not imposed from above.

>>Or they'd kill each other (which does happen even today between primitive tribes, or just look at any premodern tribal system - it is war all the time). >>

You are on...patently erroneous empirical ground.
1. Some paleolithic tribes appear to have been prone to war, some not. You just can't generalize in this way.
2. The death-toll of modern warfare, even military conflicts that don't involve explicit declaration of war, is utterly unprecedented.

>>All these things get built by regular people playing by the rules, not by disparate small groups of anarchists opposed to any sort of "hierarchy.">>

So you've restated that modern society has been and is hierarchical. Great. You have not shown
1. why in need have been so or
2. why it should continue to be hierarchical.

>>What anarchists seem to not realize is that in the real world, like in business and research, most everything is done in a team (not a hierarchical command line). Business has already figured out that strict hierarchies are NOT efficient. What works is to group people together into teams and then let them solve problems with their innate creativity.>>

Right. So if non-hierarchical teams are driving innovation, why should profits be distributed hierarchically?


>> And further, they don't see that it's because of the security guard that those people can continue to work away on that cure for cancer or that new green building.>>

This is an empirical question. We just wish to see if society can be drawn on more equitable terms, by active participants creating it. Given the success of non-hierarchical forms, perhaps this security guard is an unnecessary vestige. Or perhaps the duties of the security guard should be distributed amongst everybody, in order to counter the corruption that being a security guard breeds.

>>I also think the anarchist builds up a perfectionistic view of man. They have an ideal of man that says we are altruistic, non-violent, and non-competetive. >>

Not the case. We do, however, believe that individuals will be overall "reasonable", that is not making horrid long-term decisions on a regular basis nor acting sociopathically, screwing over her neighbor to her own peril. We also believe "human nature" to be quite malleable by society.

>>Some people are great at coming up with ideas about how to make things. But sometimes these same people suck at gathering together all the right people to make it into reality. >>

So why not let this be selected for by ability, rather than one's beginning resources? Most people enjoy doing things at which they excel.

>>This necessitates hierarchy because not everybody can do everything. Big, complex jobs require an interplay of people and a degree of organization. Often this role is assumed by the "organizers" and I'm glad we have them (I'm not one of them, that's for sure).>>

In a context characterized by democratic management, it could be that one person ends up proposing most of the organizational ideas and that people usually go along with them. Most anarchists would not find this problematic.

>>I don't mind being told what to do by someone if they share the same goal as I do. >>

If people share goals, then hierarchical enforcement is unnecessary.

(sorry for typos...i just got a lot lazier. :))

ebola
np: architect (haha)
 
RBR: First off, Noam, for quite a time now you've been an advocate for the anarchist idea. Many people are familiar with the introduction you wrote in 1970 to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, but more recently, for instance in the film Manufacturing Consent, you took the opportunity to highlight again the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. What is it that attracts you to anarchism?

CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.

Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the questions of human interest and concern arise.
 
what i dont understand is with all the dead obvious evils stemming from capitalism, how could anyone with a conscience possibly defend it?
 
a) 'dead obvious evils'? pray tell, peer of milton friedman and keynes, what 'dead obvious evils' are the corollary of capitalism? which models do economists rely on that, rather than predicting a few equilibrium conditions, predict 'EVIL1!!!11'

b) not everyone cares for your juvenile, confused and uneducated notions of a 'conscience'. i mean really: you're a professed anarchist. could you be more of a naive teenage dick? anarchism is so logically defunct that it is laughable/contemptible/makes me want to weep for having to share a ball of rock with ppl who think it is a good idea.
 
Noam Chomsky is a professed anarchist.

He is a 77 year old linguistics professor at MIT, and he is the most quoted person in the entire world.

All most every one of his books has been a world wide best seller.
 
Last edited:
O RLY? A linguistics professor? That must make his opinion particularly pertinent. No, wait: I got the wrong word. I didn't mean pertinent; I meant 'completely fucking irrelevant'.

I've always taken the position that when one resorts to an argumentum ad verecundiam and Chomsky is the authority, one has miserably failed in argument, and probably at life as well.
 
I guess having dozens of best selling books involving political analysis doesn't count for anything?

Chomsky provides detailed sources for every single one of his claims in the form of official government documents.

He is the eighth most quoted person on the planet on political issues.

It is much easier to dismiss Chomsky as irrelevant, than it is to actually articulate why you disagree with him, which is why no one ever does, they just call him names without ever refuting any of his claims, because it is impossible, being that all his claims are backed up by facts.

“According to statistics Chomsky is the eighth most quoted thinker of
world history, the ninth being none less than the German philosopher
Hegel and the tenth being the Latin master of rhetoric Cicero - no
other American is among the first ten.)”

Sure, he is so totally irrelevant, that he is the eighth most quoted person in the entire world, and the most quoted American in the world.

A few people must think his ideas are relevant.

Your laughable.
 
Last edited:
No, his books do not count for anything. He is a charlatan dilettante, and those of us who possess an actual education in the fields in which he purports to be authoritative can invariably quite safely just stare with mute incomprehension at what a presumptuous dick he is.

The only people who would ever need to quote Noam Chomsky are people like yourself: without a formal education, and who think that reading Chomsky, chosen because his inane writings are concordant with ideology common amongst uneducated, stupid teenagers and young adults, is a substitute for such an education.

You're laughable, and at least I can spell to a degree better than a small child.
 
mugen said:
No, his books do not count for anything. He is a charlatan dilettante, and those of us who possess an actual education in the fields in which he purports to be authoritative can invariably quite safely just stare with mute incomprehension at what a presumptuous dick he is.

Thank you for making my point crystal clear.

All insults.

Not a single fact presented to demonstrate why you disagree with him.

As far as your claim that Chomsky's work is incomprehensible to you, I don't doubt it for a second.

Your claim that only uneducated people agree with Chomsky shows just how misinformed and ignorant you truly are.

Chomsky is the most quoted American in the world on political issues, his writings are quoted by more educated political thinkers than any other person's writings in the world.

You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change the fact.

How about some actual fact based criticism?

Also, what spelling errors did you find in my last post?

You can't name one, because I didn't make any.

Are you a professional liar?
 
Last edited:
Top