The parallel between linguistic abstraction and political detachment is sharp here. The key insight is that Chomsky's idealized speaker-listener model strips away the very thing that makes language functional, social context and variation. When I was studying generative grammar, the disconnect betwen formal elegance and communicative reality became obvious pretty fast. Same issue shows up in his politics, where moral abstractions float free from institutional power dynamics. The critique that he refuses dialectical materialism while claiming to analyze power is particualrly damning.
What absolute buIIshlt. Even though I am not even a big fan of Chomsky any longer for various legitimate reasons, your 'report' is clearly nothing but an illegitimate biased hit piece from a Chomsky hater which is taking some very flimsy shreds and absurdly stretching them to concoct a pretense of something damning, out of very little. I'm Unsubscribing from your crap, possibly CoIntelPro controlled newsletter now. Bye..
Chomsky was acting like he'd never read Hegel when he said he didn't understand what "dialectic" meant. I find that very difficult to believe, unless Chomsky manufactured his own consent, which is financially probable.
If he pretends to not understand the tool Marxists use to analyze capitalism, then he doesn't have to accept the Marxist definition of what capitalism is, and can therefore pretend it is something else.
That way, all those grants and speaking tours and instant NYT #1 Bestseller lists keep coming. Chomsky's an intellectual mercenary.
Saying that Marx didn’t use the term “dialectics” is stupid sophistry: the METHOD is dialectical, and the connections to Hegel are obvious. Marx barely uses the terms “base” and “superstructure” (two times?), but these became important for understanding Marxian ideas.
The parallel between linguistic abstraction and political detachment is sharp here. The key insight is that Chomsky's idealized speaker-listener model strips away the very thing that makes language functional, social context and variation. When I was studying generative grammar, the disconnect betwen formal elegance and communicative reality became obvious pretty fast. Same issue shows up in his politics, where moral abstractions float free from institutional power dynamics. The critique that he refuses dialectical materialism while claiming to analyze power is particualrly damning.
What absolute buIIshlt. Even though I am not even a big fan of Chomsky any longer for various legitimate reasons, your 'report' is clearly nothing but an illegitimate biased hit piece from a Chomsky hater which is taking some very flimsy shreds and absurdly stretching them to concoct a pretense of something damning, out of very little. I'm Unsubscribing from your crap, possibly CoIntelPro controlled newsletter now. Bye..
I thought I was paid by Putin and assad. now, I am also paid by cointel pro? Lol😂😂😂
Chomsky was acting like he'd never read Hegel when he said he didn't understand what "dialectic" meant. I find that very difficult to believe, unless Chomsky manufactured his own consent, which is financially probable.
If he pretends to not understand the tool Marxists use to analyze capitalism, then he doesn't have to accept the Marxist definition of what capitalism is, and can therefore pretend it is something else.
That way, all those grants and speaking tours and instant NYT #1 Bestseller lists keep coming. Chomsky's an intellectual mercenary.
Oh he says even worse about hegel wait till the next sectionnlol
Saying that Marx didn’t use the term “dialectics” is stupid sophistry: the METHOD is dialectical, and the connections to Hegel are obvious. Marx barely uses the terms “base” and “superstructure” (two times?), but these became important for understanding Marxian ideas.