Is Chomsky's lack of aesthetic/continental appeal beyond critiquing political economy the reason why he has not inspired much change in the United States?
>>7484622
I'm pretty sure It's because he's a hack talking outside of his area of expertise.
>>7484792
And once again one answer end the thread.
It's because the United States has so many structural and cultural problems.
Also, has a continental ever inspired much change in his country?
>>7484622
>why he has not inspired much change in the United States?
Chomsky is not an activist or organiser
He writes critiques
He does not get wider media exposure because of what he says, and the need for concision
>>7484840
>is applied only to people who say things the critic doesn't like
Or people that sound like college students.
>>7484622
Why would americans pay anymore attention to him if he got all flowery, esoteric and up his own butthole?
There might not be anything inherently wrong with continental thought, but it certainly isn't for everyone
>>7484622
Yeah, pretty much. If he had gone the Ayn Rand route and written novels the U.S would be anarcho-syndichalist by now.
>>7484840
>aesthetic
>continental
>political economy
>'postmodern technobable'
are these words really that difficult to understand?
>>7484848
>He does not get wider media exposure because of what he says, and the need for concision
The fuck are you on about, he constantly receives massive amount of exposure.
>>7484622
Maybe it's because his critiques are garbage.
>muh corporations are evil
>>7484622
I think he's a mediocre public speaker. He puts me to sleep whereas the other hack Hitchens inspires me to do shit.
>>7484921
I bet your grand defense of liberal capitalism is "oh, not all rich people are evil!" as well
>>7485128
You'd lose that bet.
has a career academic ever dictated public policy?
>>7484622
>screencap of video where Chomsky debates William F. Buckley
>not ABC debates between Buckley and Vidal
Chomsky was removed from his academic bubble and put into the public sphere to fill the role Vidal left after the huge debacle that was 1968 presidential election commentary. Were it not for ABC wanting to replicate the popularity of those debates, Chomsky would probably not be known past the gates of any college campus.
As a foil to Buckley he has nothing on Vidal which was the perfect formula for ratings: a droning hyper-Liberal with the intellectual fortitude of Vidal but not one iota of his charisma, used as a punching bag for the granddaddy of modern neoconservatism. An ultra safe fight for Buckley who shot himself in the foot by calling Vidal a queer on national television, a pain he felt for the rest of his life. Manufacturing these debates, which of course evolved into what we watch daily on cable news nowadays, was probably a lot easier after the precedent was set by Buckley v. Vidal. So understanding that Chomsky's "appeal" is something that is very much so lit up by a backdrop set up by his political opponents is important to remember when analyzing his overall impact on whatever dialog he's a part of. Sure his written work and speeches can be eloquent, informative, intelligent, but conversations like ours exist because despite all of those positive qualities, whatever wisdom he shares is calculatedly impenetrable. I'm convinced his popularity exists for the sheer purpose of having someone to look like a liberal caricature - intellectual but buttfuckingly drab.
At least Vidal sucked a Kennedy or two off in his time, but who of us havent?
because he's a gun grabbing idiot who blames western civilization for everything who calls himself an anarchist but wants socialism at the same time. He's the ultimate example of an ivory tower academic woefully out of touch with reality.
>>7485533
Varoufakis a year ago. Also 1900s communist transitions in Latin America some did. If the real Left gains momentum there is a highly liklihood
Derrida, not Chomsky.
>>7484870
>>7485645
There's a documentary on Netflix right now about those debates and the cultural effects they had. I just watched it last night. Pretty good.
>>7484622
It's because his other half--his linguistic theories--are at odds with his politics. His linguistic theories are pseudo-fascist while his politics are...anarcho-socialist? anti-capitalist?
>>7485888
anarcho-syndichalist
>>7485910
lel no way.
You just happened to be browsing this thread and /ffg/?
>>7485924
Yup.
Muh structural linguistics
http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/12/07/chomsky-was-right-nyu-researchers-find-we-do-have-a-grammar-in-our-head.html
>>7485888
How are his linguistic theories pseudo-fascist?
>>7484870
Chomsky seems too aspie to write a good novel
But I guess that's true of Rand as well
>>7485953
>hey turns out we are all the same cause we can understand grunts or something
>what is class struggle
>"anarcho"-syndicalist
We can't determine what he would actually propose if he's right, but the trajectory certainly is fascist. No one cares about noam chomsky, but every will listen to some liberal cunt who says we need unite despite blatent contradiction using noam chomsky as proof
He's not a pseudo-fascist, but his theory certainly is
>>7485645
>an ultra safe fight for Buckley
Are you his ghost?
Public intellectuals in Europe tend to be steeped in the continental tradition. Not necessarily pomo shit, but a lot more "Theory" than Chomsky seems to get into, or American dudes seem to get into in general. Compare the Habermas-Nolte debate or something to any debate Chomsky has ever had in print or in person.
>>7485953
He insists that the word "Jew" should not exist and must be eradicated from our language at any cost.
>>7485733
tell me more about this "real left"
I'm not the FBI
>>7484622
Left pundits do not impact political demographics so they do not impact voting preferences. Their role is to sell hamster pellet philosophy to coastal liberals. In this, he succeeds.
>>7485873
Can confirm, it's really good. The one on Vidal is up there with it, you get to see him tottering around as an old fuck right before he died, it's a great documentary.
>>7485977
file name relevant
>>7486016
I love this board.
why do activist even bother with him? He's like fucking foucault: a guy who says things but has no relevance in activism
Foucault
>prisons are bad
>was a neolib
Chomsky
>wars are bad, stateless society good
>slurp slurp slurp
as someone who studies Political Economy he isn't taken seriously by anyone, I don't think I've ever had to read him in any of my units
he's a meme that appeals to the lowest common denominator, no different from Russell Brand
>>7486030
He gets lumped in with the rest of the liberalest liberals and honest to god I swear most people mix him up with Howard Zinn, who actually participated in activism that meant something in his time
>>7486046
>as someone who studies political economy
This is exactly what someone would say on 4chan whose some high school drop out NEET.
Anyway, as someone studies political economy, I agree. He's just some edgy memelord. Crude anti-establishmentism is just as shitty and boring as crude anti-americanism (in contrast to actually fun and critical anti-americanism)
>>7486046
Chomsky isn't an economist, why would he be in one of your units?
On the other hand, even if he was, your argument is shit, the only economic school taught in 90% of universities is neoclassical economics. Then again, instantly rejecting anything that isn't in your career as nor serious or "a meme" is in line with doctrinary pseudosciences like economics.
>>7484904
he's literally kept alive and relevant by getting his salad tossed by NYU and his dick sucked by The New School, NYC/east coast academics will not let him die and the poor dude just wants to get his nut on
>>7486109
>the only economic school taught in 90% of universities is neoclassical economics
good thing we're talking about political economy
>>7486164
I don't see your point. If you are implying neoclassical economics is limited to microeconomics, i have to wonder how the fuck you got your degree.
>>7486183
the point is that economics and political economy are two different fields of study
it sounds as if you are implying that political economy is the same as macroeconomics in which case I wonder how you even graduated high school
>>7486210
Political economy has different meanings. In any of them you'd have studied neoclassical economics. So again, i don't see your point.
>>7486086
Nice photoshop.
>>7486220
you study neoclassical economics in your first year
the rest is Marxist/Institutionalist analysis
>>7486248
You could have just answered that instead of pretending neoclassical economics is unrelated to political economy. Nice to see that sidney university is part of the minority that teaches heterodox approaches.Your argument regarding chomsky was still nonsense.
>>7484622
Chomsky's problem is that he is an american intellectual (sic!)
It's a miracle he was noticed at all, seeing how his oeuvre isnt useful for the utilisation, or production of firearms or other weapons of war in any way, shape or form.
>>7485533
Pol pot
>>7486854
>Trudeau the Younger will never visit Pol Pot and have some tea at his house while discussing French literature and how to achieve the proletariat revolution
>>7484792
It's funny that people say this because Chomsky probably knows more about politics than he does about linguistics these days. Pretty much all of his work since the 90s in linguistics is garbage.
>>7486296
there is no argument being made
Chomsky is not regarded as a serious political economist
>>7486296
(not the original fag)
Socialist Alliance non-Sydfag here, Sydney Uni is pretty cool.
One of the older comrades from my party branch studied Marxist PolEcon under Varoufakis in the 80s.
>>7487262
>Socialist Alliance non-Sydfag here
>>7487287
Hahah, good frog fellow capitalist! DiE GOMMIE SCUM
>>7484921
>This thing can't be true because it's simple!
>>7485730
>Anarchism and socialist tendencies are incompatible
You just come from /pol/ or are you just dumb?
>>7487507
anarchism is radical traditionalism
once went to a chomsky lecture and fell deeply asleep.
>>7487176
>>7485969
>hey turns out we are all the same cause we all need oxygen to live
literally what you're saying
>American
>Intellectual
Pick one and only one, because there no intellectuals in the United States.
>>7486030
Because Foucault was an actual intellectual, to be an intellectual doesn't mean only to write about things you are interested in, but to have a theory on everything, which Foucault did.
If you look at the Foucault vs Chomsky debate, it becomes painfully obvious that Chomsky was way out of his zone of comfort and only reiterated bullshit foundationalist fallacies, that were completely destroyed in France in the early 60's. Personally I don't really like Foucault, but with regards to your question why he is so popular in activist circles/universities, is that he wasn't just just extremely charismatic and clever, but he also had an approach that actually means things to people in terms of particular cases (Penal Society, Biopower, Institutions etc.). Foucault starts from the particular and goes to the general by way of Genealogy, unlike the Anglo-Saxon philosophers which have the completely opposite method.
This is why Foucault was an intellectual and Chomsky was a just a professor. Furthermore the concept of the public intellectual quite simply doesn't exist anymore. People are not taught that way anymore, but instead are driven to become over-specialized researchers.
>>7487568
>it becomes painfully obvious that Chomsky was way out of his zone of comfort
That debate was a massacre. In fact It's funny you mention that debate, because in that very debate it points out that his linguistic theories and political views are at complete odds with each other like >>7485888 mentioned.
