Shockingly, I Agree with Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky has done very good work in linguistics and cognitive science. When he gave that up to go into amateur political theory, he became more famous. But being good in one area doesn't mean you're going to be good in another. And it's not just that I disagree with Chomsky on almost everything. It's that his positions lack internal consistency and philosophical rigor. Indeed, there are people who have made better cases for anarchistic socialism (even though they're wrong too).

Still, Chomsky has decided to spend most of his time fomenting anti-capitalist sentiment and spinning conspiracy theories among hoards of adoring college kids who eventually grow out of it. His ignorance of economics is shocking. His refusal to drop the worst aspects of Marx -- theoretical and practical -- is disappointing given his IQ. Because he's become so passionate about politics, the fields of linguistics and cognitive science have lost a good mind.

Shockingly, however, I agree with almost all of this video.

I realize Chomsky's subtext is probably different from what mine would be. He, for examples, probably thinks the public schools are set up and run by the corporate machine to produce passive and uncritical consumers. While kids may be passive, uncritical consumers in a number of respects, it's kooky talk to suggest this is by capitalist design. The schools are, after all, a government monopoly. Indeed, if competing capitalists actually got a hold of the school system, they might actually do what capitalists do -- serve their customers (parents and students) by giving them the best possible education. We might be accused of a kookiness similar to Chomsky's if we were to say that the public schools have always been a means for progressives to dumb down students, to disseminate progressive propaganda and to keep teachers unions in cushy jobs. So I'll let you draw your own conclusions about such a claim. 

But if we just listen to Chomsky's words, I think we can largely agree with him. Government schools employ a Soviet factory model. The planners plan the curriculum. The teachers carry it to the students and, rationing it, deliver it in a largely one-size-fits-all model. The students passively consume, or sit there bored. Standardized tests and curricula produce standardized teachers and standardized students. The results are, well, standard (if they are not "substandard" -- i.e. crappy). There is very little experimentation. There is very little that allows students to follow their own paths to knowledge and to discover their own interests, skills and vocations. Government schools leave little room for discovery processes featuring serendipity, collaboration and real experience. It is mostly a hierarchy in which the teachers are rewarded for mediocrity, critical thinking is punished and committees plan it all from the top.

We want students to think for themselves. "Privilege and power typically doesn't want that," says Chomsky. And he's right. He's just very confused about the nature of privilege and power. 

Comments

[Lord Keynes]

"His refusal to drop the worst aspects of Marx -- theoretical and practical"

What aspects? I have seen very little, if any, Marxism in Chomsky's politics, and suspect the charge is exaggerated. His writings are filled with denunciations of Marxism.

And also he has attacked the postmodernist and poststructuralist rubbish that does seem to take over ideas from Marxism:

"Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible -- he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven't met, because I am very remote from from these circles, by choice ..."

http://www.mrbauld.com/chomsky1.html

And in practical terms, by the way, he can be found defending the type of social democratic state you would find in Sweden or other states in Western Europe, since he thinks anarchism is a long term goal.

He is at his best when criticising American foreign policy, in my view.

[Dave Parrish]

Chomsky's work in my estimation was also overrated. It was so highly theoretical that it could not be easily applied practically. Field linguists tended to lean harder on other theories. Dr. Kenneth Pike's perspective for example on descriptive linguistics was far superior and much more useful than most of what Chomsky produced. So while we can agree that Chomsky is brilliant, he tends to fail when it comes to bringing his ideas into real world usefulness.