Noam Chomsky and MIT

[Gezus]

(07-04-2011 04:19 PM)Sean Wrote:  He's on a warpath here as well http://www.facebook.com/daniele.puccio1/...0229101973

DAMN!!!!!!

[shakur420]

Nah, I didn't write much at all, just quoted most of it. People really need to check shit out before they take strong positions on things. It's for their own good. I mean, how are you gonna learn if you're not checking primary sources, applying your own standards and thoughts? How are you supposed to have an informed opinion if you're not informed on the topic you're talking about?

That's what's so jokes about people when they criticize Chomsky. They rarely approach his scholarship, the references he cites, they simply call him a "fake leftist" or whatever because he told the truth about someone they respect, and they read some article about it. They don't actually check his material themselves. But that aside, it's that general attitude. I'm supporting Kim Jong Il cause he puts his middle finger up to the U.S. I mean, really? How about being honest about it, the good and the bad. At least then, whatever you think has some credibility. Fuck Chomsky anyways, he's gonna die any minute now. I'm just using him for his sources. lol

[ClichéGuevara]

People like to overlook the bad aspects and label it "western propaganda".

[Rev]

My new Sig
"They don't actually check his material themselves. But that aside, it's that general attitude. I'm supporting Kim Jong Il cause he puts his middle finger up to U.S. I mean, really? How about being honest about it, the good and the bad. At least then, whatever you think has some credibility. "

[shakur420]

^lol, fix the typo first...

Quote:"...he puts his middle finger up to the U.S..."

[Rev]

Lol im so mexican i didnt even notice the Typo lmao

[KRIM_TACTIKS]

thanks for the new sig aswell shak

[GrandWizzard]

(07-04-2011 06:59 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  Fuck Chomsky anyways, he's gonna die any minute now. I'm just using him for his sources. lol

LOL thats cold

[1871]

(07-04-2011 06:59 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  Nah, I didn't write much at all, just quoted most of it.

That’ was clear Shakur - you quoted Chomsky - big chunks of it. Still I read it anyways and interesting it was - therefore wanted to respond to your post in detail.
I did not have internet access earlier so couldn’t reply sooner.

(07-04-2011 06:59 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  People really need to check shit out before they take strong positions on things. It's for their own good.

Your assumption here is that a ‘strong position’ (whatever that is) is being taken on this. I am merely pointing out facts - and the obvious discrepancy and illogicality between what Chomsky says and what he actually does - and could do -and specifically his relationship with the MIT given its extensive involvement in the US military. My comment that he should have resigned from the MIT is more one of logic given his opposition to the US military in which the MIT played a significant part over the decades.

(07-04-2011 06:59 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  I mean, how are you gonna learn if you're not checking primary sources, applying your own standards and thoughts? How are you supposed to have an informed opinion if you're not informed on the topic you're talking about?

Quite. But in the terms you refer to this is twisted logic. The ‘primary’ source you refer to as ‘primary’ is Chomsky - (though I am more focussing on the relationship with the MIT - so there are more aspects to consider) therefore in order to fully objectively analyse the Noam Chomsky MIT relationship you merely quote Chomsky ? That’s hardly an objective analysis. However it is also incorrect - Chomsky was quoted - specifically in the interview with Bob Feldman- and the words there were Chomskys own words - unless Feldman completely fabricated the interview.

(07-04-2011 06:59 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  That's what's so jokes about people when they criticize Chomsky. They rarely approach his scholarship, the references he cites, they simply call him a "fake leftist" or whatever because he told the truth about someone they respect, and they read some article about it. They don't actually check his material themselves. But that aside, it's that general attitude. I'm supporting Kim Jong Il cause he puts his middle finger up to the U.S. I mean, really? How about being honest about it, the good and the bad. At least then, whatever you think has some credibility.

You mention the ’truth’ followed by yet another assumption which is that I have called Noam Chomsky a fake leftist because he has told the truth about someone I respect. Or you imply this since you use the word ’they’? (Who is ’they’ by the way? Are all critics of Chomsky lumped together ?) And how do you come to that conclusion.? Which person of ‘respect’ are you referring to? Are you referring to what I have said or what someone else has said? If the latter then I wouldn’t bother tagging someone elses comments on to mine If you are going to apply all kinds of generalities which arent germane to the subject then we are only completely off subject - hence your reference to Kim Jong which again isn’t germane to this thread.

Though I am not specifically discussing Chomskys scholarship/articles here - its merits or demerits nor his work in linguistics, it does inevitably fall in the frame of this reference - and it is your assumption (not factually correct BTW) that I have not read Chomsky (and even don’t agree with many of his views) Neither does the references you cited by Chomsky contradict the evidence I have posted here regarding Noam Chomskys long association with the MIT and the long association that the MIT has with US military research and its role within the military industrial complex. Its credibility lies in whether the statements in connection with this are factually correct.
The statements made come from number of sources. I have checked them and am satisfied as to their truthfulness. I am aware that Chomsky has commented on these connections himself from the weapons to the Shah of Iran debate and as these were mentioned in the article I posted (see below) but …
Noam Chomsky has his own rationale for defending the position he takes viz accepting pay checks from the Pentagon and has a rationale to I have heard before from academicians.

Quote:The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn't have been a music department unless there was funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you could dribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody was Pentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said.’

- Chomsky

Ie; the inference being ‘that we are all involved in this one way or another’ - which is certainly true - but there is both a question of degree, the situation we are in and what we can then subsequently do about it in that given situation - and this isn’t any insignificant matter when there are bombs falling on peoples heads and people being killed.

I don’t find Noam Chomskys rationale convincing since the default mode then becomes one of mild opposition ultimately leading to acquiescence and compliance but not going so far as to jeopardise remuneration or career prospects - he at once recognises his involvement (-even that MIT would not approve of his outside activities-) but then shrugs it off with the academicians lament; theres some hand-wringing but at the end of the day its back to work and business as usual.
The illusion is that this constitutes an opposition, or it is socialism or anarchism - which it isnt.
Plenty of acolytes buy into this celebrity radicalism illusion however because it similarly allows the illusion of opposition to that which they find morally reprehensible (justifiably so) while at the same time still being compliant with the society of the academic.media.military industrial complex which, in reality, will offer them sinecure and career advancement but will continue iniquity and oppression which they rail against. Nothing maintains the bourgeois delusion of the post 60’s liberal culture like this radical paperback in the backpack philosophy.. The post 60’s bourgeois like to have their cake and eat it - they want to feel radical because they feel guilty and know it’s the right thing to do, but similarly they know where their bread it buttered and they don’t want to lose their material status or their priviledges and so in terms of activist protest simultaneously acknowledge things as they are.. It does allow the arbiters of the military/industrial complex the opportunity to show that it is not the fascist ogre it has been portrayed as however when it can show that it will allow criticism without its censure or retaliation within the institutions it controls and with the ‘radicals‘ on its payroll. It becomes the duty of the activist then not to permit themselves to be hoodwinked like this.
This is also why, I believe, there has been a gradual de-radicalisation of student politics in particular since the failed revolution of ‘68.


With regard to the anti-war protests - and my hurried and clumsy references to the same I was refering to the quoted reference earlier on this thread re Columbia and Berkeley referred to in the interview,

. I don’t know how long he was in prison for but his opposition to two of the most important student demos in Berkeley and Columbia is documented;

Quote:While he admired "the challenge to the universities" that the students were so vehemently presenting, Chomsky thought their rebellions were "largely misguided," and he "criticized [them] as they were in progress at Berkeley (1966) and Columbia (1968) particularly. Same at MIT, later" (27 June 1995). He maintained that it was not sufficient merely to speak out against the ruling classes; drawing upon his knowledge of previous revolutionary activities, he gauged the actions and effects of the current uprisings. "It was rather complex because the students generally considered me a natural ally and were often surprised at my skepticism about how they were focusing their protests, and criticism of what they were doing ­ sympathetic in spirit, but quite critical. Led to considerable conflict, in fact" (27 June 1995).

Chapter 4 The Intellectual, the University, and the State Chomsky.mht

Part of this scepticism (in my view) is not only his disinclination for activism but his
condescension towards other groups such as the Weathermen activists.

Ironically it was the discovery of Columbias involvement with the arms trade that sparked off the student protests there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Un...s_of_1968- - whereas by the 1980’s the MIT where Noam Chomsky had worked since 1955 had become the largest University recipient for DoD research funding in the US.

Noam Chomskys inner antipathy towards activism he himself has been quite open about;

Quote:Although it is impossible to overlook the complaint of many students and others that there is no meaningful work, I can't accept it intuitively. There is a great deal of challenging and meaningful work, though I am skeptical as to whether the fundamental problems of man and society can be studied in any very profound manner, at least in ways resembling scientific inquiry, perhaps because of temporary gaps in our understanding, or perhaps because of deeper limitations of human intelligence. These personal tendencies and beliefs probably lead me to underestimate the potentialities of activism or perhaps even social criticism and analysis, as well as to restrict, no doubt improperly, my own personal involvement. I'm sure it leads me to underestimate the sense of alienation and even despair that seems objectively to be an aspect of what many social critics refer to as the proletarianization of the intellectuals.

The New Radicalism, Noam Chomsky interviewed by an anonymous interviewer.mht

In the context of the MIT the specific details and the merits of Chomskys written work is somewhat irrelevant. The issue is that given his political beliefs it is quite contradictory that he can go on working at the MIT without stepping up his activism and opposition - or of disassociating altogether especially given Susan Hockfield ties to General Electric,.

Susan Hockfield head of MIT is director of General Industrial which is a direct subsidiary of General Electric.

General Electric is one of the big corporates Noam Chomsky condemns and just some of its record;


In May 2007, GE acquired Smiths Aerospace for $4.8 billion. This arms company has supplied despots around the world as well as the military hardware used to kill civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

“ GE Capital sold its $2 billion dollar Mexican assets to Santander for $162 million and exit the business in Mexico. Santander will additionally assume the portfolio debts of GE Capital in the country. The transaction will be finished at first half of 2011. GE Capital will focus in the core business and will shed its non-core assets.

During the 2011 Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant catastrophe it became public that the six reactors in the plant had been designed by General Electric and that critics had opposed GE's design as far back as 1972.

In March 2011, The New York Times reported that despite earning $14.2 billion in worldwide profits, including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations, General Electric did not owe taxes in 2010. General Electric had a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. This same article also pointed out that despite their continually diminishing tax liability since the 1990s, GE has laid off one-fifth of their American workers since 2002.

GE has a history of some of its activities giving rise to large-scale air and water pollution. Based on year 2000 data, researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute listed the corporation as the fourth-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with more than 4.4 million pounds per year (2,000 tons) of toxic chemicals released into the air. GE has also been implicated in the creation of toxic waste. According to EPA documents, only the United States Government, Honeywell, and Chevron Corporation are responsible for producing more Superfund toxic waste sites.


- GE has faced criminal action regarding its defense related operations. GE was convicted in 1990 of defrauding the US Department of Defense and again in 1992 on charges of corrupt practices in the sale of jet engines to Israel..


- General Electric has been the centre of a great deal of controversy due to its massive ownership and control of media sources. General Electric has been considered by many to be by no means a hands off owner of NBC. Its power of ownership has been evident through the censorship and control of information displayed by the media sources that it controls. For instance, NBC journalists have a record of not pointing out GE’s environmental record. In addition, when a group named INFACT created commercials urging the boycott of GE products, the commercials were banned from being aired on NBC. In 1990, NBC Nightly News ran a fourteen minute coverage over a three day span about a breast cancer detection machine produced by GE, without mentioning the fact that it was produced by NBC’s owners. Meanwhile, the device did not receive any coverage by any of the other major news networks.

General Electric has also come under criticism and controversy for its influence over other media sources that it does not own. It has been able to influence other media through its advertising and sponsorship. It cut off a multimillion dollar deal to fund Audubon TV specials when its special on logging and ranching encouraged a campaign threatening to boycott GE products. In addition, PBS was a beneficiary of sponsorship by GE when it decided not to screen the Oscar winning documentary, Deadly Deception: General Electric, Nuclear Weapons, and Our Environment. The reason that PBS gave for not airing the documentary was that it was financed by INFACT, which was boycotting GE.

Quote:Some critics have accused Chomsky of hypocrisy when, in spite of his political criticism of American and European military imperialism, early research at the institution (MIT) where he did his linguistic research had been substantially funded by the American military. Chomsky makes the argument that because he has received funding from the U.S. Military, he has an even greater responsibility to criticize and resist its immoral actions.
Wiki

The ‘greater responsibility’ to ‘resist the immoral actions’ of the US military being justified by taking its pay check in order to write an article or deliver a lecture condemning the said US military - is a basic non seqitur - but it does show the extent to which many liberals can allow themselves to believe that they are opposing the military industrial complex while they are being financially supported by it and therefore -even if unwittingly supporting the illusion of its own benign tolerance, transparency and democracy that would like to portray. Similarly irrelevant are the arguments Noam Chomsky has used involving the spin-offs (ie the internet) from the military technologies since these could have been funded and developed regardless without military spending.

I would expect that the argument would be that Noam Chomsky has infact assumed this greater responsibility by writing books and delivering lectures. Somehow I’m not convinced.

Also the tenuous argument might be made that from his position within the MIT Noam Chomsky therefore has had a good vantage for seeing how the academic/military ties operate and therefore how that complex operates first hand, and the academic/military connection he has criticised - (as with the Shah of Iran weapons debate at the MIT) and, to some extent, though in a very weak way, he ‘campaigned’ against, but that hasn’t stopped him maintaining and continuing that connection with the MIT fror his own personal enrichment - even though the MIT connection to the military research continued throughout his tenure there - and still continues.

But I don’t think this is a tenable position to take long term without a recourse to an inevitable confrontation and disaffiliation.

Particularly from an anarchist/socialist perspective a continuing association would be particularly contradictory given a professed affiliations towards anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism.
I cannot therefore see that he has continued a consistent a moral stand that has translated itself to effective anarchist action - or that he has actually concretely and continually opposed it - even on his own turf and even though he has written about it. He has fudged the issue.

Chomsky like many of the sixties generation and most of us subsequently balked at continuing and raising the ante on the activism which had led to ’68/69 and suffered a defeat (or setback depending on how you look at it) on the streets of Paris in ‘68.

For some writing a book or lecturing for fees might constitute a form of revolutionary activity - it saves actually having to go to the wire (and be fired) about it - and it’s a double bonus if the military/industrial complex can be critiqued while being paid by them - it also gives an illusion of a opposition which many in academia like to feel they posses.
The creation of this false paradigm of illusory oppositions sustains weapons research
While giving the illusory impression of democracy in allowing ineffectual supposedly radical rhetoric against it but even with representations in the Turkish courts and on University campuses little -or insufficient/continuing direct action.

Perhaps this is why so many state universities have awarded Chomsky doctorates while simultaneously working in league with the politicians and banks to cripple students with ever increasing tuition fees. Check out the resumes of University heads at once radical universities to see what links they have to big capital and financial interests.

Quote:‘ Given Chomsky's high profile and shrill rhetoric, it is amazing that he has never been called on this glaring hypocrisy. The one example I could find when it actually became an issue was back in 1967, when Chomsky famously challenged his fellow professors to take moral responsibility for their actions, denounce the Pentagon, and admit that they were compromised by advising the government. George Steiner, a professor at Columbia, wrote Chomsky a letter that was published in the New York Review of Books, asking him earnestly: What action do you urge? And he directly asked: "Will Noam Chomsky announce that he will stop teaching at MIT or anywhere in this country so long as torture and napalm go on?" Chomsky had urged people to avoid paying taxes, resist the draft, and protest the war. He even advocated civil violence as a possible solution. But Chomsky balked at Steiner's suggestion. He could have publicly resigned, denounced the Pentagon, and taken a faculty position at any leading university in the country. But Chomsky wasn't willing to give up his position. Since then, he has tried to avoid discussing the subject. Along the way, he has been paid a nice salary for more than four decades courtesy of the Pentagon.
Armed with evidence of Chomsky's willingness to accept millions in salary and benefits from the Pentagon while trying to run ROTC off campus, I wrote him an e-mail asking him to explain himself. To his credit, Chomsky did respond. But what he sent back was less than convincing.

"I think we should be responsible for what we do, not for the bureaucratic question of who stamps the paycheck," he wrote, adding provocatively, "Do you think you are not working for the Pentagon? Ask yourself about the origins of the computer and the Internet you are now using."

Somehow, the fact that I use the Internet, which was created by the U.S. military, not only means that I am "working for the Pentagon," it is the moral equivalent of Chomsky himself growing wealthy on Pentagon contracts. I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting for my check.
Intriguingly, Chomsky seems to have taken me for someone even farther to the left than he is. Thus as our correspondence continued, he suddenly grew defensive and accused me of attacking "those who have not been living up to your exalted standards."
But of course it was Chomsky himself who had created this "exalted" standard by condemning those who might consider taking grants or scholarships from the Pentagon.

http://ziomania.com/chomsky/Do%20as%20I%...I%20do.htm

Through its work with Raytheon and Draper, MIT in its research and development is intimately connected to the imperialist and expansionist war in the middle east and is currently developing relevant technogies both for surveillance and ‘counter insurgency’

Just one example;;

Quote:Small, agile, robotic helicopters could provide a new means of military reconnaissance or weapons delivery in mountainous, urban and other challenging terrain off-limits to larger aircraft and too dangerous for manned aircraft. They could fly at low altitude in tight spaces between skyscrapers or locate a terrorist's cave in the mountains, sending live images to an aircraft carrier or to bombers in flight.

The helicopter's small size and potentially low cost make it especially appealing. The machine and all its gear can "fit in the trunk of a small car," says Gavrilets. The prototype cost about $40,000 to develop (excluding labor costs), but Gavrilets expects that a manufactured model used for filming aerial imagery would cost considerably less.
He added that for military purposes, the helicopter would have to have a range of at least several hundred miles and would thus be larger and cost more--probably around $500,000. Still, that's considerably less the $2 million pricetag of the Predator, an unmanned airplane currently used for high-risk missions in Afghanistan.

Gavrilets (S.M. '98 Aero-Astro) returned to MIT as a doctoral candidate in 2000 after working on several aircraft programs, including high-altitude drones for atmospheric research, unmanned combat aerial vehicles and some other experimental airplanes. He brings to MIT a unique experience in modelling and operating complex aircraft systems, which requires combined expertise in aircraft dynamics, mechanical vibrations, control systems and software engineering. However, says Gavrilets, "Helicopters are darn complicated. A lot more complicated than airplanes, even the most bizarre airplanes."

The work is funded by Draper Laboratory, NASA and the Office of Naval Research.

Source; MIT's Robotic Helicopter Makes First Acrobatic Roll.mht

Is ‘unmanned combat aerial vehicles’ a euphemism for drones? What else would it be with the word ’combat’? It would be interesting to know this.

(07-01-2011 06:47 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  Right, so I guess he should move to Jane and Finch, or maybe Regeant Park? Marcy Projects? Compton? South Central?

Why not if he is an anarcho syndicalism whose philosophy is predicated on an affiliation and solidarity with the working class?
What would the problem be?

(07-01-2011 06:47 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  I've read that his net worth is 2 million. That's an achievement of Capitalism?

Are you asking a question, making a statement here or a validation ?

(07-01-2011 06:47 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  After 40 years of writing books, some of them best sellers? Inventing a field of science? If you don't want to look ignorant, compare his speaking fees to others like David Horowitz, Alan Dershowitz, Richard Perle, and other "intellectuals", or critics. Compare his net worth to theirs. 2 million sitting in the right places would make me unimaginably rich within a decade, it's obviously not an issue.

Again - what is the purpose of making such a comparison between the top rich? To compare the whos who of the rich list? Someone is richer than someone else so comparisons are therefore all disparities of wealth are meaningless? Is the creation of millionaires through celebrity radicalism the aim?

Were Noam Chomsky an advocate of basic libertarian free market capitalism rather than anarcho-syndicalism such a position would be rational within that context.

Does the term ‘anarchist’ or ‘socialist’ mean anything as to how you live your life or are such terms meaningless? Its hardly surprising that people have become disillusioned by what they rightly see as ‘champagne socialism’ or that Eton educated public schoolboy Tony Blair can head up a Party that originated in the working class Labour movement championed by rich Union bosses queuing up for the title of Lord in the new years honours list.

If Noam Chomsky had not professed to be an anarchist this discrepancy would not be so striking. Infact by conflating a (classless?) classical liberalist philosophy to anarcho-syndicalism the reality of a class struggle (something Chomsky is keen to do to free people from what he has called an ’ideological straitjacket’) can and has been conveniently fudged.

‘Anarchist socialists’ can therefore be listed in the top rich list, they can own mansions, collect their wages from the Pentagon, invest in stocks and shares, become millionaires etc. The only thing that has changed is that the decades is that the disparity between the rich and the poor has increased not decreased.

Quote: After the book's (Do As I Say Not As I Do) publication, Chomsky talked to Schweizer about his creation of a trust fund for his daughters and grandchildren. In Schweizer's follow up discussion with Chomsky, Schweizer reveals that even though Chomsky abhors corporations and refers to them as "fascist", Chomsky's own retirement fund is invested in large capitalization NYSE companies and the TIAA-CREF stock fund. Schweizer points out:

“ A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.

Wiki Do as I say

(07-01-2011 06:47 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  But you still didn't answer my question. If I worked for Halliburton, and I wrote an article about motorcycles, citing mechanical engineers in science journals, internal reports of government advisory boards on road safety, and economists writing in respected business journals, would you approach my article by spending your entire focus on the fact that I work for Halliburton? lol, not if you wanted to seriously question my article and sources, of course. But I get it, you got issues with Chomsky, not his material, conclusions or sources, just him. Good for you.

The title of this thread is Noam Chomsky and the MIT specifically relating to this relationship (hence the title).

This thread therefore isn’t about individual articles, (the discussion of) motorcycle technology, advisory boards on road safety or the fact that you would be a supporter of colonialism if you worked for Halliburton.

But to answer your question ; your comparison isn’t really applicable since a motorcycle isn’t a moral, political or philosophical proposition whereas Chomskys articles often specifically engage with the (im)morality of corporations which is what we are discussing within their activities at the MIT. The discrepancy is obvious. Also our actions as you’ve suggested have to become symbiotic with our words - whatever faltering steps and mistakes we make along the path to this.

However - you have raised an interesting point - namely the kind of dissociation that can result when society is viewed in only a mechanistic/academic way and if individual actions are considered as secondary or insignificant in this mechanism - and whereby things might not be changed. Institutions don’t exist without the individuals who create them and make them function - it’s a two way process.

The question isn’t about fallibility or whether someone is ‘good or bad’ - and this includes Noam Chomsky - but more about a clear understanding that when something becomes apparent over time a persons. actions are consistent with their beliefs and the situation they find themselves in.

Quote:I have left to the end the most important question, the question about which I have least to say. This is the question of the forms resistance should take. We all take part in the war to a greater or lesser extent, if only by paying taxes and permitting domestic society to function smoothly. A person has to choose for himself the point at which he will simply refuse to take part any longer. Reaching that point, he will be drawn into resistance. I believe that the reasons for resistance I have already mentioned are cogent ones: they have an irreducible moral element that admits of little discussion.
Resistance is in part a moral responsibility, in a part a tactic to affect government policy. In particular, with respect to support for draft resistance, I feel that it is a moral responsibility that cannot be shirked. On the other hand, as a tactic, it seems to me of doubtful effectiveness, as matters now stand. I say this with diffidence and considerable uncertainty.

- Noam Chomsky

[shakur420]

I started to write, but then I remembered. The Internet and computers were apparently developed at MIT. If you feel so passionately that dude shouldn't work at MIT because of it's connection to the pentagon, unplug your computer, throw it out the window, go live in the woods and never use the Internet again. Do I really need to post any references for that?


...I'm just fucking with you. Well not really, it's a valid point. Most of my beliefs on how things should be, are directly opposed to the world around me and a lot of my actions. I pay taxes, I use the public transit, I shop at Wall Mart and Metro, I help run a business for people devoted to class interests I oppose unequivocally, I hate the cops and yet I'm still glad that they are here today, etc., etc. But I'm fucking with you in the sense that this is my response to your post, lol. I will hit you back on the stuff you brought up.

[Boboulas]

The only thing worse than a chomsky fanatic is someone who makes a thread and a big huff and puff about this or that article chomsky wrote, disecting it and ranting about how he's a liberal or some shit.

To the anti-chomsky gang, id reccomend you send your critiques DIRECTLY to him which he welcomes. Ive done it and i got a reply. This post is also in responce to the annoying ammount of chomsky threads recently, we get it, HES SMART!

[shakur420]

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  Your assumption here is that a ‘strong position’ (whatever that is) is being taken on this. I am merely pointing out facts - and the obvious discrepancy and illogicality between what Chomsky says and what he actually does - and could do -and specifically his relationship with the MIT given its extensive involvement in the US military. My comment that he should have resigned from the MIT is more one of logic given his opposition to the US military in which the MIT played a significant part over the decades.

I think it's a reasonable assumption. You're claiming that Chomsky should go live in the woods - referring to the example I gave you - as so many aspects of our lives are intertwined with the way the economy of the U.S. functions (as well as that of other states), living in the woods being the likely outcome of the actions you describe. Following your logic that working for such a university could not be possible if you preached what Chomsky does, ending up a hermit living off a self sustaining camp ground in the depth of the forest is the eventual realization of this logic in practice. Maybe you're gonna say that working for M.I.T. is a little more involved in the crimes of the state than say, working as a customs agent, or national guard, or whatever, so it must be taken more seriously than other actions, but I mean if you ignore the hypocrisy of me going to protest about the high concentration of wealth while I listen to commercially released music on my iPod, I don't think you can claim that Chomsky working in the linguistics department at M.I.T. really contributes to the things he opposes - any more than our actions contribute to the things we oppose.

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  The ‘primary’ source you refer to as ‘primary’ is Chomsky - (though I am more focussing on the relationship with the MIT - so there are more aspects to consider) therefore in order to fully objectively analyse the Noam Chomsky MIT relationship you merely quote Chomsky ? That’s hardly an objective analysis. However it is also incorrect - Chomsky was quoted - specifically in the interview with Bob Feldman- and the words there were Chomskys own words - unless Feldman completely fabricated the interview.

Except Chomsky's works are rife with references. Especially when it comes to state-corporate interaction. What some people call the "military-industrial complex" and how that ties, realistically into the economy. That includes universities. Universities such as his. Since the topic is about Chomsky, it would seem that he is a double authority on the issue we're talking about. Unless, of course, we question his honesty about what happens at the university, how it's happened, and the institution's relationship to the economy, power and state - as he's covered in so much of his work, with ample references. Again, I have to say, those who are not familiar with his work (and research/references, more specifically), might find a contradiction in him working at M.I.T. Those who are familiar with his work simply understand that it makes him even more of an authority on the subject of the U.S. economy and intellectual class.

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  You mention the ’truth’ followed by yet another assumption which is that I have called Noam Chomsky a fake leftist because he has told the truth about someone I respect. Or you imply this since you use the word ’they’? (Who is ’they’ by the way? Are all critics of Chomsky lumped together ?) And how do you come to that conclusion.? Which person of ‘respect’ are you referring to? Are you referring to what I have said or what someone else has said? If the latter then I wouldn’t bother tagging someone elses comments on to mine If you are going to apply all kinds of generalities which arent germane to the subject then we are only completely off subject - hence your reference to Kim Jong which again isn’t germane to this thread.

Yeah, I'm talking about you, and every other argument I've seen that ignores the facts he puts forth and concentrates on irrelevant matters, taking the discussion to some other topic. The issue here, for you, is his involvement with M.I.T., it's connection to the power, institutions, policies and goals that Chomsky specifically claims to oppose and that this behavior seems to be a contradiction to you. You're correct, in my opinion, that it is a contradiction, but I don't agree with you that it is such a big contradiction. I mean, is it really wrong for me to get elected in a local riding while I write books, give lectures and join in actions of resistance with a clear goal of completely replacing the political system? Is that such a big contradiction? It's pure hypocrisy when a politician talks of (significant) "reform" within the system, because the facts show clearly that they would know better, they aren't children who believe it's possible. They know it's not possible, yet that's their platform. That's a contradiction worth exposing, worth discussing, worth putting out there. But if I were elected to local government and was openly vocal about my intentions to overthrow the government, dissolve the political structure, completely change the economic system through the mass mobilization of organized labor, by getting the people out in the streets, by telling the truth about our political system (because I work within it). Would this be "hypocrisy"? Or "against what I preach"?? How? I mean, that's what we need. Politicians who are part of the system and know it inside out, to come out and tell us that it doesn't work, why it doesn't work and what it is really intended to do. No?

The "facts" in this case, would include information about the workings of the university, it's connection to the economy (Pentagon) and the expectation that your work is directly affecting things about which you have a strong position on. Noam Chomsky happens to be someone who can give us information about these aspects of the university. Coincidentally. If you can show other authorities on the topic - deans, teachers, students, etc. - that challenge the way he describes the university, then you would be challenging the facts. Perhaps a report on M.I.T. by a watchdog group? Student union? Article? Instead, you keep referencing the fact that he works for M.I.T., it's connection to those parts of the economy that are destructive to people, his projected opposition to such destruction, and the presumed hypocrisy of this situation while he continues to receive a paycheck from this institution. But not addressing the facts concerning the operation of the university, whether his actions are actually hypocritical. Simply hypothesizing. Not challenging the facts, with other possible facts.

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  I don’t find Noam Chomskys rationale convincing since the default mode then becomes one of mild opposition ultimately leading to acquiescence and compliance but not going so far as to jeopardise remuneration or career prospects - he at once recognises his involvement (-even that MIT would not approve of his outside activities-) but then shrugs it off with the academicians lament; theres some hand-wringing but at the end of the day its back to work and business as usual.

Again, only someone extremely unfamiliar with him or his work - or straight out being deceptive - would claim that his career hasn't suffered for the position(s) he has taken. I think a net worth of 2 million dollars after decades of published literature, back-to-back bookings and multiple best sellers is one of many obvious pieces of evidence that his career is not "all that it could be". Not by a long shot.

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  ...I don’t know how long he was in prison for but his opposition to two of the most important student demos in Berkeley and Columbia is documented...


...Part of this scepticism (in my view) is not only his disinclination for activism but his
condescension towards other groups such as the Weathermen activists...


...Noam Chomskys inner antipathy towards activism he himself has been quite open about...

You're right. He has been quite open about that. A quick glance at his various comments about tactics, reasonably predictable outcomes and the morality associated with related decisions shows pretty clearly how he understands various forms of action, in various situations, under various conditions, with various consequences - and why he might oppose or support them. Like I said, it's jokes the things people say, people who are unfamiliar with his work and comments. People invested in the status quo say he doesn't give any "options" or "solutions", marxists say he's not "pragmatic", right wingers question his commitment to personal freedom, democrats say he is stuck in "utopian" ideals and fantasy, etc., etc. Funny thing is that he's all about freedom, Democracy and seriously tackling pragmatic solutions to move in that direction. If only people took the time to listen, read and pay attention to his words.

Quote:"There is an interesting mythology that I have opposed the BDS movement. In reality, as explained over and over, I not only support it but was actively involved long before the "movement" took shape. BDS is, of course, a tactic. That should be understood. Norman Finkelstein warned recently that it sometimes appears to be taking on cult-like features. That should be carefully avoided. Like all tactics, particular implementations have to be judged on their own merits. Here there is room for legitimate disagreement. I have been opposed to certain implementations, particularly those that are very likely to harm the victims, as unfortunately has happened.

More generally, I think we should question the formulation you gave. It is convenient, particularly for Westerners, to regard it as an "anti-Israel movement." There are obvious temptations to blaming someone else, but the fact of the matter is that Israel can commit crimes to the extent that they are given decisive support by the US, and less directly, its allies. BDS actions are both principled and most effective when they are directed at our crucial contribution to these crimes, without which they would end; for example, boycott of western firms contributing to the occupation, working to end military aid to Israel, etc."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20100922.htm

Here's some more.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19680201.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20100726.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20100731.htm

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  ...irrelevant are the arguments Noam Chomsky has used involving the spin-offs (ie the internet) from the military technologies since these could have been funded and developed regardless without military spending.

They could've been, I'm sure. But they probably wouldn't have been. It's easier to convince people that we need to build a "strong army", "fund our troops", etc., etc. than telling them their tax dollars are going to fund technology that will be handed over to private companies who can keep all the profits, once it becomes commercially viable.

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  I would expect that the argument would be that Noam Chomsky has infact assumed this greater responsibility by writing books and delivering lectures. Somehow I’m not convinced.

That's the beauty of it. You don't need to be convinced of his motives or intentions. Simply refer to his work, his resources, his references. The substance, or lack thereof, of what he's presenting. Ignore him, and to the sources he cites. Even if he is a CIA plant, a "left gatekeeper", whatever, he's giving us so much valuable information, primary and mainstream media sources, references to official documents/policies, it doesn't matter if he's fake. We can get what we need from him. Information and references. If that's not enough to believe that he's doing what he thinks needs to be done, in whatever way he can contribute best, that's he's not being real, that he's a fake, whatever, who cares? He's still providing us with the info, the sources, the primary sources on the topic he's discussing, right? He's not asking us to take his word, like every other so-called "scholarly" source. He drops the sources, he brings the info out, I don't give a fuck about his "intentions". I can check his sources myself, that's all that's important.

Until you counter those sources, you're not addressing, challenging or questioning his work. When you talk about his connection to M.I.T., disregarding the way the university functions, or ignoring it, you're not discussing the facts, you're not addressing the issue. You're just shitting on the guy. Which is fine, do that if that's what you want, I got no issues with that. Just don't expect someone to take you seriously when you question Chomsky credentials, credibility or actions.

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  But I don’t think this is a tenable position to take long term without a recourse to an inevitable confrontation and disaffiliation.

Particularly from an anarchist/socialist perspective a continuing association would be particularly contradictory given a professed affiliations towards anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism.
I cannot therefore see that he has continued a consistent a moral stand that has translated itself to effective anarchist action - or that he has actually concretely and continually opposed it - even on his own turf and even though he has written about it. He has fudged the issue.

Chomsky like many of the sixties generation and most of us subsequently balked at continuing and raising the ante on the activism which had led to ’68/69 and suffered a defeat (or setback depending on how you look at it) on the streets of Paris in ‘68.

For some writing a book or lecturing for fees might constitute a form of revolutionary activity - it saves actually having to go to the wire (and be fired) about it - and it’s a double bonus if the military/industrial complex can be critiqued while being paid by them - it also gives an illusion of a opposition which many in academia like to feel they posses.
The creation of this false paradigm of illusory oppositions sustains weapons research
While giving the illusory impression of democracy in allowing ineffectual supposedly radical rhetoric against it but even with representations in the Turkish courts and on University campuses little -or insufficient/continuing direct action.

Like I said, feel free to throw out your computer and never use the internet again. Along with many other things developed by the state sector under the funding and watchful eye of the pentagon, because whatever you're doing right now is not "enough". According to me. And my personal views, beliefs and understanding. Since my views are obviously the standard moral guide for all others to follow, if I say it's not "enough", it isn't. So for you to avoid being hypocritical on topics such as power structures, Socialism/Anarchism, the economy, responsibility, you must conform to my definition of "enough". Oh? It doesn't work that way? When I tell you that you're not doing "enough"? Why is it such a credible position then, when you say it?

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  This thread therefore isn’t about individual articles, (the discussion of) motorcycle technology, advisory boards on road safety or the fact that you would be a supporter of colonialism if you worked for Halliburton.

But to answer your question ; your comparison isn’t really applicable since a motorcycle isn’t a moral, political or philosophical proposition whereas Chomskys articles often specifically engage with the (im)morality of corporations which is what we are discussing within their activities at the MIT. The discrepancy is obvious. Also our actions as you’ve suggested have to become symbiotic with our words - whatever faltering steps and mistakes we make along the path to this.

But the motorcycle is a "moral, political" and "philosophical" issue. At least to those who care about the environment, child labor, BDS, state sector R&D funded technology that shifted to the private sector to monopolize profits and the exporting of capital. Just because you don't recognize the moral implications doesn't meant they don't exist. The example is used as simply that, an example. And that's not even the point of the example, the question. The question is, do you concentrate on the material I put forth, the substance - reports, statistics, measurements, tests, levels, maximums, etc. - or the fact that I work for Haliburton? Is the substance of my research dependent upon who signs my paychecks? What if the research, the sources and references are accurate? How does my employer reflect on that information? You haven't disagreed with Chomsky's assessment of the education sector - specifically M.I.T. - and it's involvement in the economy, it's role in making rich people even richer. You think he's correct about that, I assume because you haven't countered the substance of his work on that, but all of a sudden when he speaks on how universities work internally, he's not a credible source? Do you have any other "credible" sources to counter what he says is the norm in a university like his? I haven't seen any so far, simply the same repeated verse, using varied vocabulary - "he can't be honest or real about most of the stuff he advocates and says he supports, because he's gettin paid by an institution that is, more or less, directly involved in the things he speaks out against." I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Like I said, I'll let him explain. Until you can explain how his assessment of what it's like to work at M.I.T. is incorrect, you're not approaching the substance of his arguments and claims, nor are you successfully discrediting him. The atmosphere of the university and how he says it functions, refutes your claim that he is contributing to the things he opposes (more so than say me paying my taxes or paying my bus fare). You obviously have not see what he has to say on the topic, so that's why I keep repeating that. You really should check out what he has to say about it.

(07-08-2011 03:13 PM)1871 Wrote:  Noam Chomsky has his own rationale for defending the position he takes viz accepting pay checks from the Pentagon and has a rationale to I have heard before from academicians...

...the inference being ‘that we are all involved in this one way or another’ - which is certainly true - but there is both a question of degree, the situation we are in and what we can then subsequently do about it in that given situation - and this isn’t any insignificant matter when there are bombs falling on peoples heads and people being killed...

...The illusion is that this constitutes an opposition, or it is socialism or anarchism - which it isnt.
Plenty of acolytes buy into this celebrity radicalism illusion however because it similarly allows the illusion of opposition to that which they find morally reprehensible (justifiably so) while at the same time still being compliant with the society of the academic.media.military industrial complex which, in reality, will offer them sinecure and career advancement but will continue iniquity and oppression which they rail against. Nothing maintains the bourgeois delusion of the post 60’s liberal culture like this radical paperback in the backpack philosophy.. The post 60’s bourgeois like to have their cake and eat it - they want to feel radical because they feel guilty and know it’s the right thing to do, but similarly they know where their bread it buttered and they don’t want to lose their material status or their priviledges and so in terms of activist protest simultaneously acknowledge things as they are.. It does allow the arbiters of the military/industrial complex the opportunity to show that it is not the fascist ogre it has been portrayed as however when it can show that it will allow criticism without its censure or retaliation within the institutions it controls and with the ‘radicals‘ on its payroll. It becomes the duty of the activist then not to permit themselves to be hoodwinked like this....

Quote:DB You’ve commented to me that when you joined MIT at around that time there was a group of you that were politically active and committed.


Not at that time. At that time it was basically unknown. In fact, I wouldn’t swear to this, but I think that I was the first person at the laboratory who refused to be cleared. It was a military-financed laboratory, and people routinely went through security clearance procedures. I just refused. I know everyone thought it was kind of weird, because the only effect of it was that I missed out on free trips on military air transport and things like that. It was considered strange enough that I suspect that I must have been the first person ever to do that. I didn’t know any politically active people here at all.


DB So that came later, people like Wayne O’Neil and others.


That’s ten years later.


DB Did you feel that you had any allies internally?


Internally? Political allies? No, not really. I didn’t expect to. My political life was somewhere else. I should say that within a few years I did meet people on the faculty who themselves had pretty similar interests and backgrounds to mine, some older people, for example Salvador Luria, a Nobel-Prize winning biologist. I’ve forgotten whether he was here when I came. He was certainly here within a few years. He was older. But we shared plenty of interests. We must have met in the early 1960s. And there were other people. My friend Louis Kampf, and quite a few others. By the early 1960s people were kind of getting together.


DB That research you were doing in the 1950s and 1960s, was any of it federally funded?


Oh, yeah. Not only was it federally funded, it was militarily funded. In fact, whether anything is military-funded or not is pretty much a bookkeeping exercise. MIT runs primarily on soft money, not on endowments, not on tuition. How the soft money is distributed is a very mysterious matter which they don’t even understand in the bookkeeping department, as I know, having once been on a committee that tried to look into it years later. In a certain sense, everything is military-funded, even the music department. The sense in which that’s true is that if they didn’t have military funding for, say, the electrical engineering department and had to go to other funds for that, that would cut off the departments like the music department. So it is primarily a bookkeeping matter. But if you look at books of mine that were written in the early 1960s, you’ll notice a formal statement on the front page saying, This was funded with the support of, and then it lists the three services. The reason is that the laboratory itself is funded by the three services, or was, maybe still is, for all I know.


DB How has the institution changed over the time that you have been there?


The big change was to a certain extent a result of the changes in science and math education in the country that took place around 1960. To some extent it was sparked by Sputnik, or at least that was used as the pretext for it. That created a great concern in Congress and around the country that somehow we were falling behind the Russians. That initiated and maybe was exploited for (you can argue about this) a lot of involvement in science education and math education in the schools. Within a short period of time students were coming to MIT who were much better trained. MIT started to shift at that time, more or less as a reflection of the students who were coming in, from an engineering school, which it had been in the 1950s—when I got here it was primarily an engineering school—to a science-math school, which it was by the mid-1960s. So many more students were majoring in the core sciences and mathematics. The classical engineering disciplines started to decline, people who were figuring out how to build bridges and things like that. Students were much less interested in that. The engineering departments that remained generally duplicated science curricula. So like in the electrical engineering department you wouldn’t be studying how to put circuits together, but you would be studying physics and mathematics not unlike what you would be studying in the physics and math departments, except with applications to electrical engineering problems. The same is true of aeronautical engineering and mechanical engineering and so on. It became a science-based university instead of an engineering-based one.

One consequence of this was a considerable growth in the humanities. The engineers of the 1950s were pretty vocationally oriented. For them the humanities were kind of a frill. It was something you took so that you could know how to talk to people politely. But by the 1960s, the science and math students, for one thing, had more time. They weren’t totally occupied with applications, and they just had other interests. That led to student pressure to expand the humanities programs. I was personally interested in that myself, especially with philosophy, so I was particularly involved in trying to develop the philosophy program from being kind of like a prep school, read-some-interesting-books type of program, to a real philosophy program, both undergraduate and graduate.

The same happened in history. At about that time, other departments were spinning off. The biology and psychology and brain sciences departments all spun off at that time, actually from the very same electronics laboratory. The electronics laboratory where I was was a place where there was a very strange and complicated mixture of people interested in all sorts of offbeat topics, which later became departments, some of them huge, at the Institute. Biology and psychology and linguistics and philosophy and the computer sciences all came out of that milieu. But by the mid-1960s it was a very different sort of place, like a university based on science rather than a high-quality engineering school. You could see the shift in the nature of the students, the curricula, etc.

It was still very apolitical, in a sense. I should say that the faculty peace activities in this area, signing ads, organizing protests, were mostly based at MIT, not at Harvard, from the early 1960s. So even though overall the Institute has a more conservative cast than, say, Harvard, it’s here that the political activists mostly work. A few people drifted in on the periphery from Harvard, Howard Zinn from Boston University, but it was mainly MIT, even though it’s a very small group of faculty. Among the students, there was a small group, people like Mike Albert and Steve Shalom and others, who were students around the mid-1960s. They were very active starting around 1965, 1966.

Also Louis Kampf and I were teaching at the time very large undergraduate courses with hundreds of students on contemporary affairs and social and political issues, the role of intellectuals, alternative vocations, things like that. They were bringing in lots of students as the ferment of the 1960s finally hit MIT. But it really wasn’t until late 1968 or early 1969 that the Institute became really seriously politicized and became seriously involved in things like the antiwar movement and so on.


DB You often give talks at MIT. Just in the last few months you’ve given talks on Colombia and the drug war, East Timor, and most recently in solidarity with the workers in Decatur, Illinois.


This role of MIT as the central place for community and universitybased activism has continued. So if an organization wants to have a meeting, they’re much more likely to have it here than at Harvard or Boston University. Much more likely. That’s why we always have these meetings where you show up at the same room, 26-100.


DB The new CIA director is John Deutch. He’s a former MlT provost. Did you know him?


Not terribly well, but we knew each other.


DB The reason I’m asking is that I figure when you retire from MIT you’ll have a new career at Langley (CIA headquarters).


I don’t think so [chuckles]. We were actually friends and got along fine, although we disagreed on about as many things as two human beings can disagree about. I liked him. We got along very well together. He’s very honest, very direct. You know where you stand with him. We talked to each other. When we had disagreements, they were open, sharp, clear, honestly dealt with. I found it fine. I had no problem with him. I was one of the very few people on the faculty, I’m told, who was supporting his candidacy for the President of MIT.


DB Which he didn’t get, right?


There was faculty opposition.


DB One of the questions you are often asked after your talks is the one about, How can you work at MlT? You’ve never had any interference with your work, have you?


Quite the contrary. MIT has been very supportive. In the 1960s, particularly, I’m sure I was giving them plenty of trouble. I don’t know the figures now, but in 1969, when the only serious faculty/student inquiry into this was undertaken, into funding, there was a commission set up at the time of local ferment about military labs, and I was on it, and at that time MIT funding was almost entirely the Pentagon. About half the Institute’s budget was coming from two major military laboratories that they administered, and of the rest, the academic side, it could have been something like 90% or so from the Pentagon. Something like that. Very high. So it was Pentagon-based university. And I was at a military-funded lab.

But I never had the slightest interference with anything I did. MIT had quite a good record on protecting academic freedom. I’m sure that they were under pressure, maybe not from the government, but certainly from alumni, I would imagine. I was very visible at the time in organizing protests and resistance. You know the record. It was very visible and pretty outspoken and far out. But we had no problems from them, nor did anyone, as far as I know, draft resisters, etc.


DB That always surprises people when you tell them that.


It shouldn’t. It just shows that they don’t understand how things work. A science-based university like this is much freer in those respects.

You should check out this talk. All about this topic, corporate connections to education, the dangers, the realities and his personal experience at M.I.T. You should check out the whole thing, but it's like an hour long. At about 28 min, he really starts focusing on the education part, university funding, etc., but even before that, it's good stuff. Like I said, I can't speak for the dude, but when you hear him talk about the corporate connections to education - which he does quite a bit - it seems like he brings up things that we don't think about. We might think that a university accepting funding from a corporation would mean total, or near-total, capitulation to the interests of that corporation, but the reality seems to be much different than that. I'm no expert on how universities work, never even been to university, but what the dude says on the issue makes sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwjt5cxFtvg