Kennedy Institute of Politics: Professor Brandon Terry- Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: The Future of Leftist Politics in America'

Source:Kennedy Institute of Politics- Professor Brandon Terry, interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky

"A discussion with:
Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Political Theorist and Activist
Brandon Terry (moderator)
Assistant Professor of African and African American Studies and Social Studies, Harvard University."

SourceKennedy Institute of Politics

 As someone who is not a psychic or a leftist, I would say the future of The Left ( as it's called ) and I would argue Far-Left ( at least in an American sense ) will be about identity politics, the welfare state, big government in general, and I guess self-honesty. ( For lack of a better term ) Where you'll have millions of young Americans especially who are proud to be Leftists ( let's call them Socialists ) who no longer feel the need to hide who they are politically and even hide their own political labels.

This event was in late 2015 about 3 1/2 years ago but just go up three years later to November, 2018 and we now have a class of Democrats or at least prominent Democratic freshman in the House who are not just proud to be Leftists, but proud to be Socialists. Who just a few years ago would've felt the need to run in the Green Party to run for reelection and to have any shot at winning the nomination for the office they're seeking, who today can run as Democrats and not just run as Democrats, but run as Socialists and Democratic Socialists.

The Democratic Party today thanks to Bernie Sanders in 2015-16 now has a significant Socialist faction in it. Whether that's 20% or 30%, the Democratic Party today now has a significant, hard core Socialist base who believe that government can solve any problem that has ever been known to man, if it just has the money to do so. Which is very different from where the Democratic Party was just 10 years when they were basically just a Center-Left progressive party with a Far-Left fringe in it. 10 years later the Socialists in the party now look more mainstream with Democrats who just 10 years ago would be viewed as solid Progressive Democrats ( like Barack Obama ) , now are viewed as centrists or even Conservative Democrats. ( At least by the Socialists in the party )

What I just laid out looks very mainstream at least when you're talking about the left-wing ( to say the least ) about the Democratic Party today. People who believe in social democracy or democratic socialism, who want a large centralized national government and welfare state there to meet the economic needs of all the people.

If the left-wing of the Democratic Party was just Henry Wallace or George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and if that's all the left-wing of the Democratic Party represented today and represented people of all races and ethnicities, male and female and they weren't about racial or identity politics, but a pluralist political faction that was about social democracy or democratic socialism, they wouldn't look that radical today especially with young Americans, especially with the more militant faction of this movement that wants to make race, ethnicity, and gender issues about everything not just in politics and government, but in American life in general.

But the left-wing ( or Far-Left ) in and outside of the Democratic Party today are not all pluralists and don't care for liberal democracy. It's not just social democracy that they want, but believe that men aren't necessary, ( at least Caucasian men ) that women aren't just superior to men, but should be running everything, and generally view Caucasians especially men as ignorant and bigots, unless they come from the West Coast or Northeast and were educated there.

And that's the growing faction in the Democratic Party that you have to worry about if you're a mainstream Democrat who is part of the Democratic leadership, because as the Far-Left grows in the party, the less Far-Left they'll look and more mainstream that they'll look in the party. But they'll still look very radical outside of the party and mainstream Democrats will have to figure out how to get elected and reelected with this faction on their back that they'll need to win elections, but still be able to appeal to mainstream Democrats and Independents.

Chomsky's Philosophy: Professor Noam Chomsky- Free Speech on Campus

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy- Professor Noam Chomsky: talking about free speech on campus. 

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views that you don't like. Goebbeles was in favor of freedom of speech for views that he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views that you don't like."

From Chomsky's Philosophy

Professor Noam Chomsky, will never get mistaken for a Ronald Reagan, William Buckley, or Barry Goldwater Conservative, except for perhaps in one area: when it came to free speech, Professor Noam Chomsky is to the right of Reagan on free speech and believe that free speech is for everyone. Not just Hippies who oppose war, but for right-wing Nationalists who hate minorities. These hard-core Leftists on the Far-Left ( whether you want to call them Socialists or Communists ) might view Chomsky as a Conservative, simply because he believes in free speech. But disagreeing with these Leftists on anything, is like saying no to Joe Stalin: you put your life or career in jeopardy when you do that. You're either with these hard corse Leftists on everything, or they see you as part of the opposition.

Something else that these Far-Leftists should think about: if they're successful in censoring speech that they don't like, the right-wing at some point could come in and start outlawing music and other entertainment that they don't like, or political demonstrations that they disagree with. Which is what they tried to do in the 1960s with Vietnam War protests and pro-civil rights demonstrations. It's that old Martin Luther King line about every action having a reaction to it: when you take action against someone on the other side especially an action that they despise like trying to cut off their free speech rights, they'll do the same thing against you when they're in power.

If you're going to live in a free society like a liberal democracy, there are certain actions and views from others that you have to put up with. You don't have to accept them or agree with them and you're more than welcome to oppose them and demonstrate against them. You just can't use your freedom to deny someone else's their freedom, simply because you disagree with their personal choices and views. If you don't accept the concept of a free society and oppose liberal democracy, try living in a communist or nationalistic state where the government is there literally to hold onto power and they do that by severely limiting what their people can do so they can hold onto power. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Professor Noam Chomsky: The Nanny State

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy- Uncle Sam's Big Government.

“Noam Chomsky – The Nanny State”

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy 

Noam Chomsky’s definition of a nanny state, is what almost every else including people who favor the nanny state on both wings of the American political spectrum, would call corporate welfare. Where government at taxpayers expense subsidizes wealthy successful corporations and individuals. That is not a nanny state, but corporate welfare.

A nanny state is big government that tires to do too much for the people themselves. Make decisions for individuals that they ( meaning big government ) believe should be left to big government and not individuals. Like how much and what people should and can eat, or what and how much they can drink. (tT use as examples) Big government telling people who they can sleep with and marry, when romantic couples can start living together, would be other examples of a nanny state.

There are two ideological forms of the nanny state both in America and in the rest of the world. One coming from the Far-Left which seems to get more publicity than anything else when it comes to big government as it relates to personal issues, is very secular to the point that Far-Leftists would even outlaw religion if they could and have in most communist countries. Far-Leftists both democratic in a socialist sense and authoritarian in a communist sense, who believe they’re the only smart moral people and have all the answers to the point that even questioning them is somehow immoral and should be punished by government force. The Communist Republic of Korea ( which is what North Korea really is ) is a perfect example of that.

The other form of the nanny state in America and in other places in the world, tends to have Far-Right fundamentalist, theocratic, religious tones, as well as nationalist, tribalist, fascist tones. That they ( the supporters of this fascism ) are the real Americans or whatever nationality you want to use, that they’re the only real Patriots ( not from New England, necessarily ) and everyone who disagrees with then are immoral and hate their country. We saw this with Senator Joe McCarthy and his McCarthyism movement in the 1950s and backers of the so-called Un-American Activities movement in the late 1940s and early 1950s. And their religious and moral values are so superior to everyone and everything else, that their values and religion should be the law of the land. And that anyone who violates these values should be in prison or even worst. You see this in the Islamic Republic of Iran. (To use as an example)

Corporate welfare and the nanny state, even though they’re both related to big government and backed by big government, are two different things. One is about subsidizing wealthy individuals and corporations at the expense of everyone else. The other is about telling people what they can’t and can’t do and trying to use big government to manage people’s lives for them. Because they believe that personal freedom is dangerous and just the freedom to make mistakes and commit immoral acts, as they would see it. Corporate welfare and the nanny state, both come from big government, but aren’t the same things. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chomsky's Philosophy: Noam Chomsky- 'Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?'

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy- Professor Noam Chomsky. talking about free speech in America.

“Noam Chomsky – Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” 

From Chomsky's Philosophy

Noam Chomsky is a self-described Socialist and Libertarian-Socialist, no one’s moderate or right-winger, making the perfect argument for why even Neo-Nazis and others on the Far-Right in America, deserve free speech rights simply for being American citizens. Even if they’re the worst Americans citizens that we have in America.

Professor Chomsky arguing both for practical as well as principal reasons why even Neo-Nazis have free rights in America.

The practical reason being that Neo-Nazis could claim that their First Amendment rights are being trampled on an violated if some government authority passed some censorship law banning free speech in their jurisdiction or if the Federal Government attempted to do that and than enforced that law on Neo-Nazis and other Far-Right hate groups. These hate groups could no only claim that, but they would be right.

The right to free speech in America, just doesn’t protect free speech, but it protects speech. Including speech that offends the oversensitive so-called politically correct (really Far-Left) in America. Or speech that offends the Christian-Right in America. Certain forms of entertainment that offends the Christian-Right’s moral and religious values.

The First Amendment-

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Supreme Court has made only three exceptions to this.

Inciting violence like yelling fire and calling for a panic in a large crowded public place.

Falsely libeling people and libeling people with no real base or evidence to back up what you’re accusing the person of.

And harassment. You can name call people and call them bad names, but once the person moves away from you and makes it clear they don’t want to even hear from you, let alone talk to you, but you insist and follow the person around simply to harass them, you could face legal consequences for that if the person presses charges against you, as well as civil charges.

Simply using language that is offensive and even hatful, as well as false against people you hate short of calling for violence against that individual or people, is protected by the First Amendment in the United States.

We’re all equal citizens in America all having the same constitutional rights and deserve to have those rights equally enforced and protected. From the best of us who work everyday to make America a better country for everyone and who volunteer for people who are disadvantaged and even donate their time and money to people who aren’t doing well. To hateful assholes who look down on people simply because they have a different complexion and are of a different racial and ethnic background as the people who hate them.

As Noam Chomsky said the way to deal with Neo-Nazis and other hate groups, is to win the argument. Shouldn’t be that difficult to do for anyone with even average intelligence. Most Americans or at least a large majority of us, don’t hate people or feel superior to other people, simply because they have a different race or ethnicity.

If Neo-Nazis want to claim that Africans are animals and not humans and therefor not deserving of the same rights as Europeans, well we all know that Africans are human beings.

If the Neo-Nazis want to deny the Jewish Holocaust and genocide in Europe, show people the footage and literature that proves how false those claims are. Simply just show Americans who are young and perhaps don’t know any better how stupid these hate groups are simply by showing people what these groups have claimed and people will know how stupid they are.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

AlterNet: Alexandra Rosenmann- Why Noam Chomsky Won't Call Himself a Modern-Day Liberal

AlterNet: Alexandra Rosenmann- Why Noam Chomsky Won't Call Himself a Modern-Day Liberal

I’ve blogged a lot about Noam Chomsky over the last five years or so, because I find him to be absolutely fascinating as well as very intelligent. Even though we don’t tend to agree economic policy, foreign policy, history, America even, but he’s someone whose very consistent with his own libertarian socialist politics. Which is my point here. He’s one of the few people on the New-Left, (if that makes happier instead of Far-Left) but he’s one of the few people on that side who actually owns his own politics. While people who have a lot in common with him politically like former Representative Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, still call themselves a Progressive, or Liberal (which gets my heart rate up when I hear that). Professor Chomsky says he’s a Libertarian-Socialist and has no problem with being called a Socialist.

What is a Libertarian-Socialist? You take libertarianism or liberalism on social and personal freedom issues and combine that with a socialist economic policy. As well as a dovish-isolationist foreign and national security policy. Which puts him to the left on really all social issues of the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives, as well as so-called Progressive-Humanists. Who think they know better than anyone else what people should think and say and even think big government should decide what people should eat, drink, smoke, even what entertainment what we watch. These Progressives are supposed to be on the Left, but they have more in common with the Christian-Right when it comes to a lot of Freedom of Choice issues and gambling is another example of that. As well as being big government on economic policy. Noam Chomsky is a hard-core Liberal on social issues and against big government there.

Professor Chomsky, described his own politics as Libertarian-Socialist as early as 1977 in a BBC News interview. And Bernie Sanders is probably the closest thing we have to someone who is that liberal on social issues today and doesn’t want big government interfering there short of stepping in when people get hurt. But is a Democratic Socialist on economic policy. High taxes across the board, in exchange with a lot of Welfare subsidies. With a very limited military and foreign policy. There’s a lot for Liberals such as myself when it comes to social issues, Libertarians when it comes to social issues and Progressives and Democratic Socialists, when it comes to economic policy, to like about Noam Chomsky. And at least respect him in other areas. Because even though he’s someone who wants a big government involved in the economy, he believes in small government when it comes to social issues and civil liberties.

In These Times: Noam Chomsky: 'The Long, Shameful History of American Terrorism'

In These Times: Opinion: Noam Chomsky: The Long Shameful History of American Terrorism

I beg to differ with Noam Chomsky that America is the world leader in American terrorism. I would first look at Iran and perhaps even Russia now with Vladimir Putin. America has made some serious mistakes in who we've decided to back and that goes back at least as far as the Vietnam War. My main problem with American intervention in third world authoritarian states are the government's and regimes that we've backed. Especially dictators like Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, The Shah of Iran from the 1940s until he was ousted from power in 1979.

The theory behind the backing of authoritarian regimes at least going back to the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s has been that if we don't back these government's, they'll be replaced by people who are worst. That will be worst for the people there and our interests in those countries. The crater size hole in that argument is that the people on the ground tend to hate their government's. Because of how authoritarian that they are and the lack of rights that they have. And they see what America is doing by backing the regime there and take that out on the government and America.

I don't have a problem with backing developing countries and the people there. The questions are who do you back, to what point do you back them and what is the money being used for. Are you backing freedom fighters, or people who would replace the regime in power with another authoritarian state. Are you backing freedom fighters and people would serve their people and govern responsibility? Or are you backing terrorists that may be even worst for the country than the current regime.

America unfortunately has a history of backing the wrong people as I've already pointed out. And we've paid a heavy price for that going back to at least 1978-79 when the Shah of Iran was kicked out of power and replaced by a far-right theocratic Islamic regime that has sponsored terrorism against the United States for the last thirty-five years. Again it is not whether you should back developing countries and people looking to overthrow dictators. But who you back and how you back them that America needs to better at. That I'll explain in more detail in a future blog.

Understanding Power: Video: Noam Chomsky on Liberalism, Freedom & Democracy

Source:FRS FreeState

I have a lot of respect for professor Noam Chomsky's honesty and being able to communicate exactly where he is politically and being able to articulate what he thinks about other political ideologies. Noam Chomsky is an admitted Libertarian Socialist and very honest about that. Which means he's like a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist on economic and foreign policy. 

But Noam Chomksy is a Liberal-Libertarian on social issues. So we probably agree on most social issues. Myself being a Liberal Democrat, but my issue with professor Chomsky has to do with the fact that he sort of has this "you are either with me or you are selfish and believe in selfishness and inequality. And that poor people should be kept down and so forth". He's somewhat exclusive with his politics, you either agree with him and share his politics completely, or you're a bad person or something. Its not that you disagree with him, but that you are a bad person all together. Which I don't have much respect for.

As far as libertarian socialism vs. liberalism, classical Liberalism even, I believe he's right for the most part. That people who are Liberals today, are not Social Democrats or even Progressives. But people who share my politics or are similar are actual Liberals instead, where people who are called modern Liberals, are essentially Socialists or Social Democrats. 

Today's so-called Progressives, Social Democrats who believe that the state, especially the Federal Government has a big role to play in taking care of the people. And insuring economic equality and that they are somewhat liberal on social issues, depending on what type of Progressive that they are.