• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A rational case for anarchism

JihadJane said:
Yawn.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Noam Chomsky at a terrorist museum. What else is new?

I wonder what Mr Chomsky thinks of Hezbollah's support for the Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Wonder how that fits in with his anarchist ideals.
 
Virus said:
Yawn. Noam Chomsky at a terrorist museum. What else is new?

I wonder what Mr Chomsky thinks of Hezbollah's support for the Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Wonder how that fits in with his anarchist ideals.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Keep repeating the word "terrorist" over and over again and it might never happen.

Here are some interesting comments on Anarchism from Noam Chomsky:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm

e.g.: "Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate."
 
One can always trust uncle Noam to present for better argumentation than those who follow him, or those who claim to have an anarchist philosophy. Unlike so many others, he admits he has no idea how it might work and his argument doesn't amount to "Let's do away with the state. It's going to be awesome!"

However, here he comes up with something that seems rather trivial to answer:
Noam Chomsky said:
The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.

Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct.
Click to expand...
The authority and domination are necessary because we do not understand complex systems such as human societies well enough to know how they should be reshaped and constructed to do without them.

If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Here he equates necessity with legitimacy; the institutions are only legitimate if they are necessary. Since authority and domination in some form are necessary because we do not understand enough of human societies to be without them, they remain legitimate until we do understand enough.

It should be noted that human societies are today rapidly increasing in complexity, which might mean we may never understand them well enough.
 
JihadJane said:
The US also funds the Taliban.
Click to expand...

Nope.

JihadJane said:
Yes, they do.

How the US Funds the Taliban

Congressional Investigation Confirms: US Military Funds Afghan Warlords
Click to expand...

Your articles only show that the US is being extorted by Warlords and the Taliban, "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them." is not what I would call funding.

Or maybe you have a different definition of "funding" than the rest of the English language.
 
Last edited:
Earthborn said:
One can always trust uncle Noam to present for better argumentation than those who follow him, or those who claim to have an anarchist philosophy. Unlike so many others, he admits he has no idea how it might work and his argument doesn't amount to "Let's do away with the state. It's going to be awesome!"

However, here he comes up with something that seems rather trivial to answer:The authority and domination are necessary because we do not understand complex systems such as human societies well enough to know how they should be reshaped and constructed to do without them.

Here he equates necessity with legitimacy; the institutions are only legitimate if they are necessary. Since authority and domination in some form are necessary because we do not understand enough of human societies to be without them, they remain legitimate until we do understand enough.

It should be noted that human societies are today rapidly increasing in complexity, which might mean we may never understand them well enough.
Click to expand...

I agree. Noam is smart enough not to map out a blueprint.

Anarchist assumptions took a serious drubbing when the police went on strike in Montreal in 1969.
 
Virus said:
That's just flat-out disingenuous. The US army hires local contractors which end up paying the Taliban protection money.
Click to expand...

An entirely predictable result.

That's not "the US funding the Taliban".
Click to expand...

Yes it is and to the tune of millions of dollars.

Iran arms, trains and finances the Taliban directly, with fully knowledge and intent.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Don't you think that, if the Taliban were occupying Canada, that the US would fund Canada's resistance?

Virus said:
I agree. Noam is smart enough not to map out a blueprint.

Anarchist assumptions took a serious drubbing when the police went on strike in Montreal in 1969.
Click to expand...

Which assumptions were those?
 
Last edited:
Wow, Im calling Poe here, because there is no sane way anybody can defend the taliban, who are the Middle Eastern equivalent of Shining Path. And the US is not funding the taliban.
 
Noam chomsky might i add thinks the USA is the Imperium of Man out of Warhammer 40000 with their "commissar culture". Yet i have never heard of "commissars" putting guns to governor's heads, nor have i heard of the USA carpet nuking countless for laughs, nor does the US military have chainsaws in their arsenal.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
Wow, Im calling Poe here, because there is no sane way anybody can defend the taliban, who are the Middle Eastern equivalent of Shining Path. And the US is not funding the taliban.
Click to expand...

Who's defending the Taliban (or the Draka)?
 
You were. You were saying that the Taliban were the resistance, and therefore the good guys. This ain't France 1940 JJ.
 
The Taliban just want power again and the coalition stands in their way.

suppose there was a large scale insurgency in Germany and Japan post WW2 which makes Iraq look like a bar fight. I am pretty sure people will say the insurgents are only "resisting occupation"
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The Taliban just want power again and the coalition stands in their way.

suppose there was a large scale insurgency in Germany and Japan post WW2 which makes Iraq look like a bar fight. I am pretty sure people will say the insurgents are only "resisting occupation"
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "only" resisting occupation?

If you don't think that the Taliban are resisting the US occupation of Afghanistan, who is, because the occupation isn't going very well, for some reason?
 
Last edited:
You were suggesting that they were on a moral par with French Resistance cells by referring to them as resistance. I was pointing out their totalitarian ambitions. Why else do they throw acid at schoolgirls? These guys are the Khmer Rouge of Central Asia.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
You were suggesting that they were on a moral par with French Resistance cells by referring to them as resistance.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't. That's your spin. I am not you.

I was pointing out their totalitarian ambitions. Why else do they throw acid at schoolgirls? These guys are the Khmer Rouge of Central Asia.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to whether or not they are resisting an occupation. It is largely the occupation that gives them power and legitimacy. Any thoughts on Anarchism?
 
by that standard, then the Werwolves were legitimate after WW2, or the KKK in the post ACW south.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom