It sounds like he is pleading for people to support Trump. :-) Then later, "Chomsky urged US leftists to vote for Biden in this November’s presidential election".
Uh, what??? He said that would lead to civil war. He wants civil war?
If he wins, we get permanent fascist dictatorship, now with nukes and fine-grained universal surveillance.
Which is the better bet?
I'm aware of the meme "well the senate will change" but... what if they just don't want to either?
The media didn't pipe up much about Obama who used executive orders like they were going out of style. The mass immigrant deportations, extrajudicial targeted assassinations, etc.
Our current officeholder is catching up, in his one (only?) term.
But to your point, yes, he wants civil war OR any scenario that results in his chosen political religion to become dominant. Most reasonable people think more political parties would be beneficial, Noam and those of his tribe want a single party system like china where they are in control.
What? Chomsky is an anarchist, and refers to himself as a libertarian socialist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch...
That is something to consider when judging his claim to be against authoritarian government. It seems he thinks government is only authoritarian when it does things he dislikes, but it's not authoritarian when it orders everybody to obey rules that he approves of.
We call this "hypocrisy".
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If you view climate change as an imminent and catastrophic threat, I think it's pragmatic rather than hypocritical to use existing regulatory powers to help solve the issue, while simultaneously arguing that it shouldn't be necessary to have centralized power in the first place.
And libertarian socialism (and anarchism in general) isn't unilaterally opposed to government; it just insists that power (monetary or political) be decentralized. I expect that most libertarian socialists recognize this is a big leap from our present situation, and so start by tackling what they see as the biggest problems first (which may indeed be corporate rather than political power).
I'll let Chomsky speak for himself; here he describes the core of anarachist thinking:
"[Anarchist thinking is] generally based on the idea that hierarchic and authoritarian structures are not self-justifying. They have to have a justification. So if there is a relation of subordination and domination, maybe you can justify it, but there’s a strong burden of proof on anybody who tries to justify it. Quite commonly, the justification can’t be given. It’s a relationship that is maintained by obedience, by force, by tradition, by one or another form of sometimes physical, sometimes intellectual or moral coercion. If so, it ought to be dismantled. People ought to become liberated and discover that they are under a form of oppression which is illegitimate, and move to dismantle it."
> That is something to consider when judging his claim to be against authoritarian government. It seems he thinks government is only authoritarian when it does things he dislikes, but it's not authoritarian when it orders everybody to obey rules that he approves of.
This may very well be the case; I'd need to do some research to (potentially) refute it.
> We call this "hypocrisy".
I like the point you are bringing up; the views of public figures deserve close scrutiny and criticism. This line strikes me as a bit condescending, though.