I actually emailed Noam Chomsky asking questions about Manufacturing Consent and actually got a reply. I always thought he was really cool for being so accessible to those who just had honest questions. I really hope he gets well soon.
When I was young I emailed him with a question something like "I am too young to have witnessed the events of the Vietnam War, can you please recommend me some reading material or push me in the right direction?"
That question turned into 5 or 6 (long) emails back and fourth that i'll always cherish that delved into his unique perspective on what the war was like as a protestor from the West, which papers got released that actually had some truth in them, among a lot of other valuable insights into the time period I had no access to myself.
At the end of our conversation he advocated finding a group that needs volunteers and effort. He didn't care what group that might be, he only cared that individual political concern of individuals be empowered by the necessary groups and collective effort.
I think that kind unequivocal support of 'being political' is something that is truly special.
I hope the best for him -- I view him as one of the only 'truly accessible' academics in this world; just as happy to slowly and carefully explain his thoughts to 'the rabble' as he would be while explaining the same thoughts to high academia and the press.
A great man.
"Afraid I never met any of those you mention, though I’ve followed their work for many years.
I’ve never been close to intellectual elite circles, including people I very much admire."
The time stamp for my email was Tuesday, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:19 PM. It was answered by chomsky@mit.edu at Tuesday, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:29 PM. Pretty remarkable.
That is very humble
You cant be anti-imperialist and accept a dinner invitation where you will inevitably be forced to smile at and rub elbows with the same men you critique as war-criminals. The man is principled.
I hope he recovers. He would be sorely missed.
I'm autistic, so I would smile and tell them exactly what I think of them. but fortunately I don't get invited to parties.
Seems that by your logic one who disagrees with an evil he sees in his society should leave immediately or commit to silence.
For anyone curious, here is Chomsky in 1976 discussing the relevance of automation and anarcho syndicalism to modern productive economies: https://youtu.be/h_x0Y3FqkEI
I truly believe we can build a world where everyone benefits from automation, getting the freedom and time to do what we will that every person deserves. The reason I develop open source farming robots is to explore concepts of community ownership of the means of production and community oriented engineering. Noam Chomsky’s work heavily inspired the thinking that got me where I am today.
It should be pretty simple to understand why: no one person or group of people can predict all eventualities or contingencies and it is not possible to design a system based on rigid ideals that can fail gracefully.
The problem with anarchism is never infighting it just wasnt good at defending itself from external military threats.
Stalinism on the other hand, was a perfectly crafted machine for dealing with external military threats, but wasn't very nice to live under.
Is that system “working”?
In June 1888 Peter Kropotkin wrote “Are we good enough?” on the subject of human nature and anarchism. It’s well worth a listen: https://youtu.be/jytf-5St8WU
edit: thanks again, your linked video is perfect, I have held this exact view that "we're not good enough" for communism/anarchy, so this is the perfect challenge to my current beliefs!
the real solution is to fix the "are we good enough" problem and change education such that we actually become good enough. this requires moral education to a degree that is not happening anywhere yet. the reality is that as peter says in the beginning, if we were good enough, then the system would not matter. and has history has shown, as long as we are not good enough, any system remains exploitable. communism brought a temporary relief but ended up failing because we still were not good enough.
so lets forget this arguing about which system is better. it does not matter. what matters is that we learn to become good enough. that should be our goal. that's the only way to eliminate all problems.
I think US historians wrote books on it, but often fail to mention that after (or really, a bit before) Neuschwander took control, the metal and steel industry that sold them metal gave them structurally deficient steel, poor quality copper and were largely inconsistent in their metal delivery, being late for months, then giving them all the late commands at the same time, stretching or overflowing their storage. The luxury store and industry wasn't any better (one more reason to hate LVMH and never support them as a French), leaving their products in inventory and not in display, rejecting previously accepted commands, and limiting foreign exports to less than the number of exported goods than when Lip watches had to be smuggled. The courts and police didn't help and (according to what i heard: this is a biased account) refused to take any declaration.
1. Criminal trials via random lottery of jury with the charged being viewed as innocent until proven guilty.
2. Checks and balances, where governmental power is intentionally limited and weakened.
3. A system of federated governments that elect representations, with a design favoring minority members of that federation.
Anarchism is always a balancing act between legitimate power and limitations on that power. Most forms of Anarchism do not reject all forms of power as illegitimate but rather place a heavy burden of proof on the claim that legitimate of the use of power.
I disagree with a lot of what Chomsky has said but I do think his definition of anarchism was very well stated:
"Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just." - Noam Chomsky
How about the environmental costs of all that automation?
Is there a realistic path for getting to what you propose from where we are now?
[Edit: realistic in the sense that e.g. the Alcubierre drive is possible but requires exotic matter, therefore "not realistic").
But, look here. He's 95 years old and just had a stroke. He's not going to get well soon, or at all.