Most of his books were legit replicas of each other. But the

>>9633741
were against leftism here, idiot

>>9633741
>Most of his books were legit replicas of each other.
obviously, they were mere propaganda

File: face.jpg (11KB, 351x270px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 351x270px

>>9633750
>this is not a discussion board

>>9633741
Right about what?

Not that I trust anything he has to say. Politically entrenched authors are the worst. What insight does one have, aside from "I am always right?"

>>9633801
about everything goym, about everything

>>9633801
The new American intellectual and technical class, the "new Mandarins", are partly responsible for atrocities committed in the Vietnam war because they actively accepted the idea that technocratic approaches to applications of power are always beneficial or at least neutral, or at least only passively voiced their disapproval. In addition, the US policy in the Vietnam conflict was actually to crush South Vietnamese national movements than to actually protect South Vietnam from Northern Intrusion. Writing in 1968, he predicted that the US would not be able to defeat the Vietcong.
>Quite generally, what grounds are there for supposing that those whose claim to power is based on knowledge and technique will be more benign in their exercise of power than those whose claim is based on wealth or aristocratic origin? On the contrary, one might expect the new mandarin to be dangerously arrogant, aggressive and incapable of adjusting to failure, as compared with his predecessor, whose claim to power was not diminished by honesty as to the limitations of his knowledge, lack of work to do or demonstrable mistakes

>>9633741
>Press F to pay your respects.

Has he died yet? Thank god

>>9633863

He's still alive :(

>>9633860
But the south only fell when partisan politics prevented our arming them.
And that little blurb is a naif view of aristocracy

>>9633860
>On the contrary, one might expect the new mandarin to be dangerously arrogant, aggressive and incapable of adjusting to failure, as compared with his predecessor, whose claim to power was not diminished by honesty as to the limitations of his knowledge, lack of work to do or demonstrable mistakes

That sounds more like the modern "intellectual", quite ironic

>>9633894
Read the book if you are interested; it's very well researched imo. I haven't read much Chomsky outside of that, but I would like to get into his linguistics stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss

>>9633900
That is what he is describing and speaking out against in the book.

>>9633741
>Most of his books were legit replicas of each other.
You could say this about most writers you underread rapscallion.
>muh I don't like his politics so I'm gonna whine about his work

File: Reagship.png (45KB, 159x130px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 159x130px

He's a big guy, but I wish he criticized Stalinism more.
I wish he condemned the silly wannabe anarchists.
I wish he applied his anarchist critiques to organized religions.
I wish he didn't pander to rednecks.
I wish he acknowledged some great things done by private companies, and then argued how an anarchistic alternative could've been just as good, if not better.
I wish he had rejected free will nonsense.

Other than that, I love him.

>>9633937

So he has zero self-awareness at all?

Manufacturing Consent will go down as a great poli science and journalism book
The rest is trash and no one cares

>>9634176
No. Did you even read the quote? If you are implying that he assumed the role himself then you clearly have no idea of Chomsky outside of /pol/ memes.

>>9634197

This is the guy that wrote "The Responsibility of Intellectuals".

>>9634208
How is that in any ways contradictory to his concept of the "New Mandarins"? He is not saying it is a good thing.

>>9634224

Because he self-righteously assumes that he and other intellectuals on the "right side of history" deserve to be the gatekeepers of virtue for the masses.

>>9634229
He doesn't put himself with other intellectuals. He criticizes them and undermines his own importance.

>>9634229
Only he doesn't. He outlines his own failure and moral guilt in order to establish intellectual honesty. He doesn't construct a "right side of history", rather he outlines a morally just opposition to the Vietnam conflict which he saw as a needless technocratic intervention that risked dismantling the societal fabric of Indo-China. If you watch the Buckley interview, Chomsky admits that there was a stage when such intervention could be morally argued, but at the time in which he was writing it was clear that it could no longer be justified. He says it is the moral responsibility of intellectuals to investigate such actions by government rather than accept the State's own idyllic ideological justifications.

>>9633741
fuck, you made me google him and see if he died or something. Why are we paying respects?

>>9634247
>>9634247
>He says it is the moral responsibility of intellectuals to investigate such actions by government rather than accept the State's own idyllic ideological justifications.

Yes, how benevolent of him to prescribe moral responsibility to his own ilk.

>>9633901
This is off topic, but why does William Buckley make all those weird facial expressions. Is he actually egotistical, or was that the beginning of television etiquette?

>>9634283
https://youtu.be/9DvmLMUfGss?t=13m11s
Watch to 15:00, brainlet

>>9634181
>The rest is trash

In cognitive science and philosphy of language Chomsky's work is the de facto paradigm against which everything else is measured

>>9634354
He larped before larping became a thing. The guy was pretending to be a slave owner, which is why he sounded like he did.

>>9633860
Interesting, maybe I should read Chomsky after all.