I pretty much agree with this analysis, minus the dig against atheism. I haven't read Chomsky in detail, but this seems to be an accurate description of what he claims on the surface (e.g. in public interviews).
It seems likely that hatemongerers like Chomsky were an influence in leading to Aaron Schwarz's eventual suicide.
I apologize for the insensitivity towards Aaron here, but it seems worth saying.
Did you stop to think that maybe this is why you agree with someone who is making overbroad generalizations about Chomsky's work? How can you agree with any analysis if you're ignorant of what it's analyzing?
The culture of "right to criticize without reading" in the US astounds me.
Further it is amusing to hear a self-proclaimed objectivist asserting that external forces played a role in causing a free agent's suicide.
The culture of "right to criticize without reading" in the US astounds me.
There are a lot of large-scale cultural problems here, but I don't think that in particular is one of them.
I can't count how many times I've looked up Chomsky's views over the years, and every single time I've looked them up, it's become immediately clear that he is completely dishonest.
Normally, I do some background research before I read primary sources, and for the reason I stated above, I've never gotten past the background research.
If you think there's some particular primary resource from Chomsky I could read that would completely alter my worldview (and change my above analysis), please let me know, but you would have to convince me that this is likely enough that it's worth my time to look into it.
Until then, I have to take his statements on face value, albeit I am (admittedly) "taking" them without the full context of the surrounding literature.
Further it is amusing to hear a self-proclaimed objectivist asserting that external forces played a role in causing a free agent's suicide.
I mean, it's pretty obvious that people fall for bad ideas and then act on them. I guess you must have a pretty strawman-ish grasp on Objectivism.
I can't count how many times I've looked up Chomsky's views over the years, and every single time I've looked them up, it's become immediately clear that he is completely dishonest.
It would be interesting if you gave us a few examples of where you looked up his views, and found him to be completely dishonest.
He contends that there is little moral difference between chattel slavery and renting one's self to an owner or "wage slavery". (from Wikipedia)
There is just one example, taken relatively randomly.
"Wage slavery" is a completely invalid concept. If I want to work, and somebody wants to pay me a wage, that is moral and proper and free. It's called trade.
Someone who holds a gun to my head to force me not to engage freely in trade with others is immoral and evil.
Clearly, Chomsky has the latter view, unless I'm misunderstanding.
Actual slavery is an institution supported by immorally coercing someone, too, like the position Chomsky is advocating.
So Chomsky's views have much more in common with slavery than the views he criticizes as being like slavery, i.e., trading one's effort in return for payment.
Chomsky claims to be against "unjustified authority," but he is actually a major proponent of force in human relationships.
I can't take someone seriously who makes these kind of blatantly ridiculous statements.
Of course, I am taking this from Wikipedia, not in the full context of what he has actually written. So, maybe he didn't actually say that. Or maybe he actually said it, but proceeded it with, "The following sentence is false." I would need to hear something to this effect before I would consider taking someone seriously who says the thing that I quoted from Wikipedia.
Because what he's said is in the same broad epistemological and moral category as a verse from a holy book commanding people to kill others for religious regions. In other words, completely unrelated to reality, and completely evil.
From the Wikipedia article that you mention: The term wage slavery has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops), and the latter as a lack of workers' self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy. [1]
I think the article itself is quite clear. The notion of wage slavery does not imply everyone who accepts wages is a slave. Taken without the qualification of bargaining power and such, Chomsky would be MIT's slave. I don't think he subscribes to that view.
I downvoted you because you took that sentence from Wikipedia completely out of context, not just out of context with regard to its surrounding paragraph on Wikipedia, but also because its out of context with regard to the citation at Wikipedia and what Chomsky has to say about worker ownership.
I summarized the essence of why I disagree with the article, and with what Chomsky said. I cannot address all the low-level details here and give a precise rebuttal to everything.
So I acknowledge that I have taken it out of context, but in a more neutral sense. That's just the nature of taking a very detailed point of view, and trying to discuss it on HN with people who have totally different underlying assumptions.
I do want to thank you for explaining why you downvoted me, and for standing up against the person who called me an "imbecile" in a different comment. I really value this community and even when we disagree on philosophy, it's really good when we can all be civil to each other.
It seems likely that you are an imbecile. Thanks for letting everyone know that you agree with everything the review says about Chomsky despite the fact that you haven't actually read Chomsky.
One can still have a conversation about a subject without having much depth in the subject. If you haven't read Taming of the Shrew, you can still understand the story if I give you a quick version, and we can talk about that meta-story, because there are things in the text (via my description) that we both understand. However, it's difficult to have a conversation with much specificity or depth having not both read the text.
You'll note that javert's posts here lack both specificity and depth. It's probably best to just leave it at that note.
Thanks for letting everyone know that you agree with everything the review says about Chomsky despite the fact that you haven't actually read Chomsky.
You're welcome. I think that's the intellectually responsible and honest thing to do. And it gives people a chance to point out what I am misunderstanding and educate me, if they really think I've gotten it wrong.
It seems likely that you are an imbecile.
I gave an explanation for why I haven't read his actual literature in another comment. I mean, I don't read the Quaran in order to learn about science, either. Does that mean I can't criticize those who do? Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm not an imbecile.
"And it gives people a chance to point out what I am misunderstanding and educate me, if they really think I've gotten it wrong."
Just a friendly note that this notion will cause you much grief.
I used to think that it was the best way to quickly get to the point and figure out what is what in the matter. What happens instead is that people will call you an imbecile and go off on tangents about subjects they have recently read a story about instead of addressing the core issues, of which they know less about.
In reality most people do not know much about these complex issues and you will not really learn anything by trying to make them educate you. They are not able to.
You will need to investigate the issues yourself, including reading a lot of literature by those you think are wrong. Eventually you will be able to understand where those opposing viewpoints are coming from and if you are lucky you will learn something that can adjust your own views and you will no longer have the "us vs them" feeling and instead think of it as "those who are wrong on this point and those who are wrong on this other point".
Getting to that place is impossible by imploring others to educate you. They will at best try to convert you, which is entirely different.
I mean, it's not my primary motivation in making comments, for other people to "educate me" in a broad sense.
I meant something more like, "If I happen to have misunderstood some particular concrete thing, people can provide a citation that shows the opposite."
Which, indeed, didn't happen this time. Instead, as you said, there was just a bunch of very high-level disagreement without any "meeting of the minds" on some important lower-level details.
Anyway, my real motivation for posting on the Chomsky stuff was because I feel compelled to call out truly evil pseudo-intellectuals, as I see them, when I see them. Chomsky advocates "anarcho-syndicalism," which is just low-level rule by gangs. He wants to dismantle civilization, which he preaches hatred for. To me, he is in the same moral standard as the intellectuals that came before and enabled the likes of Stalin and Hitler.
You missed an essential point in the introduction of the review. Chomsky is not a hatemongerer: he is honest, hard-working and idealistic. It's just that the worldview underlying his arguments, the worldview that guides how he chooses subjects and supporting arguments, may be unbalanced and consequently 'wrong' in the eyes of many others.
It seems likely that hatemongerers like Chomsky were an influence in leading to Aaron Schwarz's eventual suicide.
I apologize for the insensitivity towards Aaron here, but it seems worth saying.