Charlie Hebdo, the aftermath

[213374U]

For people like me, yeah, I know the West does bad things, I'm in the humanities and I drink lattes. So what exactly should we be doing differently? And if I don't believe the West does any terroristy things... well, you won't persuade me like this, will you?

What should we be doing differently? Try tax resistance. Chomsky has spoken about this and organized it in the past. It's simple, really. The state simply cannot function without money from our taxes and it's a perfectly legitimate* way for people to force policy change when policy is both morally repugnant and illegal. That however puts us personally at risk (fines, incarceration) so we are naturally less inclined to do it. So... we'll stick to nodding sagely over our lattes and self-righteously wag our fingers at Russia, Iran, "terrorists", etc. I was thinking of adding "until some disenfranchised naturalized Muslim puts a bullet in our brain", but that's not likely to happen, so I'll close the sentence with "until we choke on a butter croissant and die".

 

As for convincing... how is that Chomsky's job? He just talks about stuff. It's your civic duty to remain informed and form your own opinions. There is plenty of information about cold hard facts out there, you don't need Chomsky for that.

 

As an aside, I'd appreciate if you guys didn't do Bruce's work for him. It's much more entertaining to see him come up with ever more ridiculous applications of his double standards to justify the atrocity of the day than just see him get behind something someone else said.  

 

 

*of course, only if you succeed. If you don't, it was never legitimate and you are a seditious rebel, an anarchist, an anti-social element or what have you.

Edited January 22, 2015 by 213374U

[Barothmuk]

Chomsky is as much on the 'left' as he is on the 'right'.

 

Like pretty much everyone that mostly thinks outside of boxes, he doesn't fit into any of the cookie cutter manufactured paradigms of thinking that make up the imagined left/right paradigm. Hence, you'll find people who identify themselves as being on the 'left' call Chomsky 'right wing' just as you'll have people such as yourself call Chomsky 'left wing'. The reason being is Chomsky tears apart many ideas held dear by people who identify themselves as being on both sides of that false paradigm, so he must be the other side of that spectrum in their eyes.

Oh please.

 

The left/right divide is a pretty crude division of political ideologies but to say Chomsky's politics somehow transcend the binary by virtue of him criticising both sides is ridiculous. There's basically nothing in Chomsky's politics I'd call "right-wing", he's just your standard leftist who points out societal faults all the while providing no praxis as to how we can change these problems.

 

He's more or less baby's first radical left politics.

 

In many ways Chomsky is essentially an anarchist, and that's something that generally does not fit into that two dimensional left/right spectrum.

Anarchism is widely considered left-wing.

[Rostere]

In many ways Chomsky is essentially an anarchist, and that's something that generally does not fit into that two dimensional left/right spectrum.

Anarchism is widely considered left-wing.

 

I have to disagree here...

 

Anarchy could be considered left-wing or right-wing depending on implementation.

 

Most people I know who are leaning in that direction comes from a right-wing perspective.

[Barothmuk]

The only "noteworthy" right-wing anarchism is anarcho-catpitalism and that's basically just a joke.

[Valsuelm]

Anarchism is widely considered left-wing.

 

 

No, it is not.

[Rostere]

The only "noteworthy" right-wing anarchism is anarcho-catpitalism and that's basically just a joke.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

In any case, I know more right-wing anarchists than I know left-wing anarchists. The difference I guess is that they are not demonstrating in the streets but seem to prefer subverting the system from the inside.

[Meshugger]

Being a jew a in sweden is not so swell at the moment: (run through google translate)

 

http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/bar-kippa-i-malmo--attackerades-pa-gatan/

[Barothmuk]

No, it is not.

Wikipedia disagrees.

 

Worth noting is that the left/right divide is obviously an artificial division that was crafted in the specific circumstances of the French Revolution (progressives on the left, reactionaries on the right) which has expanded itself more broadly to represent a division between support for the lower class (left) versus support for the ruling class (right) or even more broadly support for equality versus support for inequality.

 

In the words of the leftist they generally support working-class politics and policies that seek to reduce and/or abolish social and economic inequality. E.g. The moderate leftist will support welfare policies that alleviate the symptoms of poverty and the far-leftist will seek to abolish the causes of inequality. In their eyes the rightist, in contrast, defends the interests of the existing ruling class at the expense of the working majority.

 

The rightist however supports social inequality seeing it as desirable or inevitable. E.g. economically the rightist will seek the preservation of private property and will seek to limit the power and/or influence of groups that threaten its existence (unionists, far-left parties and so on). In their eyes the protecting the rights of the individual and accuse the leftist of “collectivism”.

 

Anarchism (generally) being an ideology that supports the abolition hierarchy and social inequality obviously falls on the left side of this spectrum as it opposes the hierarchy of both state power and private property. Hence why your popular “anarchist movements” (Makhnovia, Catalonia) and anarchist philosophers (Bakunin, Kropotkin etc) are all identified as “leftist”.

 

Of course one can reject the existing criteria for the left/right divide and create your own but that’s about as politically useful as me arguing everything that I don’t support is actually fascism.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Zoraptor]

Wikipedia is wrong, plain and simple. Can't say I am surprised since most self identified anarchists are left wing and most anarcho capitalists self identify as libertarians nowadays, but anarchism is and always has been left/ right agnostic, its opposing pole is authoritarianism (also left/ right agnostic).

 

Your thesis is also fatally flawed. For example, abolition of hierarchy is not a left or right tenet at all. In theory Capitalism supports the abolition of rigid hierarchy, in perfect, theoretical capitalism hierarchy is also perfectly fluid, those with ability rise to the top whatever their start in life due to their achievements and the support of the market and everyone is rewarded by the market according to their contribution- perfect social equality because everyone has an equal chance of achieving success. That would make capitalism left wing...

[Volourn]

"Anarchism is widely considered left-wing."

 

L0L

[Tigranes]

 

For people like me, yeah, I know the West does bad things, I'm in the humanities and I drink lattes. So what exactly should we be doing differently? And if I don't believe the West does any terroristy things... well, you won't persuade me like this, will you?

What should we be doing differently? Try tax resistance. Chomsky has spoken about this and organized it in the past. It's simple, really. The state simply cannot function without money from our taxes and it's a perfectly legitimate* way for people to force policy change when policy is both morally repugnant and illegal. That however puts us personally at risk (fines, incarceration) so we are naturally less inclined to do it. So... we'll stick to nodding sagely over our lattes and self-righteously wag our fingers at Russia, Iran, "terrorists", etc. I was thinking of adding "until some disenfranchised naturalized Muslim puts a bullet in our brain", but that's not likely to happen, so I'll close the sentence with "until we choke on a butter croissant and die".

 

As for convincing... how is that Chomsky's job? He just talks about stuff. It's your civic duty to remain informed and form your own opinions. There is plenty of information about cold hard facts out there, you don't need Chomsky for that.

 

As an aside, I'd appreciate if you guys didn't do Bruce's work for him. It's much more entertaining to see him come up with ever more ridiculous applications of his double standards to justify the atrocity of the day than just see him get behind something someone else said.  

 

 

*of course, only if you succeed. If you don't, it was never legitimate and you are a seditious rebel, an anarchist, an anti-social element or what have you.

 

 

Sure, there are paths like tax resistance, and even standard old protests can sometimes approach actionability when it gets ferocious enough. In other words, you have to put your body and your life on the line to some extent, or at least your own personal security as afforded by the state. I have to admit that I personally do not feel able to do this - not for this issue, perhaps not for any issue. That might well mean that if I was a German in 1939 I would have gone along with the Nazi regime as well, instead of risking death by, say, helping Jews. I'm well aware that doing something meaningful in such a level might well take lot more courage than I have. 

 

My point about Chomsky is, his job is to talk about stuff, not to lead a revolution. Well, what is he doing by talking about this in this way? For people like me who are already aware of Western actions that he mentions, he doesn't give me new information, nor does he give me concrete steps to take, nor does he inspire me. For people who refuse to admit that the West is also guilty, he just comes off as a typical Leftist conspiracy tin foiler in his rhetoric. He isn't going to persuade someone who thinks Muslims are de facto dangerous. The problem isn't that his job is only to talk. (That's my job, too.) The problem is how can he talk effectively.

[Barothmuk]

Wikipedia is wrong, plain and simple.

I'm not one to value Wikipedia by any means but "anarchism is generally considered a left-wing ideology" is basic political science 101.

 

Can't say I am surprised since most self identified anarchists are left wing and most anarcho capitalists self identify as libertarians nowadays, but anarchism is and always has been left/ right agnostic, its opposing pole is authoritarianism (also left/ right agnostic).

Indeed, anti-authoritarianism is another tenet they like to throw around however seeing that itself is spread across the spectrum one must look towards their other core tenants to determine their political orientation.

 

As noted there are exceptions to the rule (e.g. dumb**** ideologies like anarcho-capitalism) but generally speaking anarchism falls onthe left.

 

For example, abolition of hierarchy is not a left or right tenet at all. In theory Capitalism supports the abolition of rigid hierarchy, in perfect, theoretical capitalism hierarchy is also perfectly fluid.

Pfffttt, haha.