Comments:Interview with US political activist and philosopher Noam Chomsky

Chomsky's ignoranceEdit

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Chomsky ignores the biggest scam of all time and that is Obama's rescue of the financial elites with trillions backing their bogus credit default swaps. Geithner, Bernanke, and Paulson directed the rescue of Goldman, JP Morgan and unnamed international banks with taxpayer backed bonds and all Chomsky can think of is let's have more solidarity and unions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

While I can feel with you for not wanting to bail out a bunch of people that earned (and earn) plenty playing roulette (well, selling pyramid schemes is perhaps more precise - thought to be honest not all of them do that) with other people's money, would you really prefer the alternative... let them crash, widespread bank runs, considerably more hefty recession than the one we're experiencing, etc. ? I would have guessed not... Sean Heron (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Sean I believe you are overlooking the fact that these bailouts were designed to undermine democracy. If the Obama administration cared about democracy and fairness they would simply have bought the banks, in fact the government could have bought AIG and CITIGROUP for less than half of what it is costing to bail them out. Also there is no evidence that letting these banks fail would lead to an economic crisis, in fact it is possible that it may be a good thing. Soapy (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Also to respond to the first person there is a good youtube video where Chomsky does thoroughly discuss the bailout plan and determines its win-win for the investors and bankers, and lose-lose for the public, I didn't ask him about the bailouts because I knew he had already spoken on them Soapy (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Chomsky shows deeper insight into societal functioning than is commonly found amongst functionaries of government, members of academia or participants in the profession of journalism. It is sad that such light cannot shine strong enough into the darkness we are cloaked in by the all pervasive machinery of common journalism that enables the brainwashing by 'the system'. It is journalism Like Michael Dranove's that rates with the efforts of Bill Moyers on Public Television; I applaude wikinews for helping expand the counterforce to the Orwellian nightmare I find myself living in. -Bertvanwijck (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

congratulations for this interviewEdit

I am not a Chomsky follower or so, but I read this interview with great interest. I think it's a very nice piece of wikinews journalism -- Torsten (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You lose credibility with your hairstyle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Also want to say I really appreciated this interview and video clips. thanks :) --Mdale (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Makets DO let you decide.Edit

He says: 'But a market doesn’t permit you to decide "I don’t want a car, I want a public transportation system". That’s just not a choice made available on the market.' I disagree. If by "public transportation system" he means "mass transit", then a market *does* let you choose that -- if enough people want it then a business will likely spring up around that. However, if by "public transportation system" he really means "I want *you* to pay for *my* transportation", then by definition, no, because that isn't a market, that's coercion or theft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alrightalready (talkcontribs)

Well I'd have to disagree. In the early half of this century and up until around the 1950's, we have one of the best public transportation systems in the world. However, around the 1950's Goodyear tires, Standard Oil, and Firestone Rubber decided to change all this by buying the public transportation system in cities all around the country and then destroying them. Chomsky has spoken about this in this past, saying it was a literal conspiracy because the companies were actually tried in court for conspiracy to destroy the transportation system and found guilty. Well that's a good example of how the free market works I think. Large centers of concentrated wealth are able to run amok doing whatever they can to increase profits, while consumers have little choice over which concentrated center of power they want to support. Soapy (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

you complain about money, yet u endanger lives by driving. That is a very double mentality. Obviously voting for public transportation, means you want to apply it, and will promote it; Amongst many other things for safety and comfort of the rest. With this crazy " bail out" huge expenditure is done on wildwest finances. Supposedly sth. weird (war..?) will raise some consumption levels to new macabre heights (not 10 but 30% of usians in wheelchairs beause of weight problems perhaps). Okay so after the usian pharmaceutical industry got you all sick they now go in the wheelchair business.. Brings me to my own compliment for chomsky, this is a nice and impressive interview for wich my thanks to soapy, I especially want to thank Noam for comprehensively representing the 'medi-care' solution. It is rather simple, and kept out of the picture in an orwellian way indeed. Well.. check the 50% of usian minors on psychiatric drugs for that.. big business, the desperate market is the brains of a whole population and 2 generations ?? You know it's worse then any drugs for the future generations? it is a cumulative problem of 3 or 4 generations now!? i.o.w. in the middle and near future throughout the west extra medical will need to be taken even to minimally cope with the effects of this capitalist exploit. Massive costs already the persistent run on pharmaceutics spells the very worst. These cars and their related effects on polution are a much to blame next in this avalanche. (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Chomski's dreamworldEdit

There are two kind of socialists: those who tried socilism themselves and those who learned about socilaims from books. Chomski is clear example of the last. His idea of socialism which he pushed all his life has nothing with reality. Socialism failed in Russia, China, Cambodia, Africa, Chili, etc.-everywhere where it was tried. Blinded by his ideology Chomsky does not see that unions destroyed US industry and the result is profitable not for workers who became unemployed but for mafiosies governing the unions. A separate interesting question is why Chomsky socialism goes hand-by-hand with his hatred to Israel? In this respect he follows the line of Hitler national socialist and Stalin's communists. Probably, anti-semitism and the left-wing ideology are different features of the build-in mentality invented by Chomsky.

This is a fairly typical criticism. I'm just going to respond to one of your points. It's kind of ridiculous to call Chomsky anti-semitic just because he is critical of Israel. I mean, it's ridiculous for anyone, but especially so for Chomsky, because he is Jewish! Do you see him saying things like "Jews are evil - including me!" Of course not. That's what anti-semitism means, and he isn't anti-semitic.

Hes a anarchist not a stalinist.

He's a libertarian socialist. As am I. --JulesMattsson (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a minute, really, let's take Chile (Not chili for the record), was that socialism under Pinochet? Whoever wrote the comment above needs to look at the examples they listed, and think whether they are actually socialist. Going back to Chile, which is the country i know most about as I have family and friends there, under pinochet was quite the opposite of socialism, he was for the free market; it was neoliberalism, and how many people died, how many's lives were ruined. He eventually was forced to u-turn, presented with the clear evidence that his policies didn't work. And thatcher astonishingly stood by pinochet amongst intra-national calls for him to be tried for crimes against humanity! --JulesMattsson (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Chomsky rules"Edit

Chomsky rules — (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)