Anarcissie, November 9 at 1:12 pm

Of course it can’t be condemned.  And whatever becomes
of it, let’s keep our fingers crossed, it’s the natural
human response to whatever’s wrong with the world.

We should count ourselves fortunate that it’s happening
in our lifetime.

Chomsky is an old guy with a point of view which I agree with most the time.  He is educated, articulate and willing to give is time to explain his theory.

God bless him, I wish there were more like him.

If ‘the line between good and evil runs through every human heart’, then how can Occupy Wall Street or any of the other occupations be condemned categorically?

Most of this thread is a perfect example of why the left is screwed. No wonder
Chomsky is not interested in leadership.

OzarkMichael, November 8 at 5:27 pm

Don’t you seem to be contradicting yourself, Michael,
when you say you call for “a more balanced view”? 

There’s nothing “balanced” about pressing for the
hard n fast distinction between the wicked or the
righteous, or the good and evil, whether in biblical
and moral terms.  Nor is it the case that I
necessarily disagree with you, in that when the push
comes to shove, we may have no choice but to press
for exactly the kind of distinction you’re pressing
for.  But let’s not call it “balanced,” correct as it
may be.

Anarcissie’s extension of those fundamental terms,
good and evil, is well taken as far as extensions go. 
She may yet to come to realize that it all flows from
the inner recesses of the human heart, the good and
evil thing, that is—our bone of contention between
us even as I speak.  But this isn’t to say her
extension of the fundamental meaning is misdirected
or off target.

Ozark Michael—I speak of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, of course, strictly from my point of view.  From that precipice, the state, the powers that be, the assemblage of domination and administration and great and unequal wealth, and the violence, sadism and superstition by which they rule, are ‘evil’; peace, freedom and equality, even if inchoate, partial and compromised, are ‘good’.  I am surprised you take exception to my exercise of judgement given your own involvement in the practice.

Foucauldian—I seem to have dreamed the text I cited.  When I Googled vanden Heuvel got the same ‘OWS must do this, OWS must do that’ junk the proggies are so fond of.  Sorry.

Anarcissie said:

Precisely.  The Occupations are an anomalous, delicate flower of chance surrounded by and the target of every sort of evil…

Oh brother. How many gallons of the Kool-aid can one person drink?

I much prefer a more balanced view. The line between good and evil runs not between this faction and that faction, nor between this nation and that nation, but the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. Its the outmoded and discarded Christian view, but i think it is true.

Dear RayLan,

My statement about Chomsky as a ‘do nothing’ was completely ironic. Yes i was picking up what other posters here were saying. Obviously i am not for the mob activities on the video tape. Like Chomsky I live as a peaceful but politically active person. i am a ‘do nothing’.

In other words, RayLan, you are a moron who doesnt know what irony is.

Anarcissie,

Can you identify the piece you referred to by name?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/katrina-vanden-heuvel

The link to her blogpost

Anarcissie, November 8 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

Actually, my main point about Chomsky is not that he’s new or old, but that he’s another person telling an Occupation what to do, instead of organizing whatever it is they think should be going on.

You demonstrate a rather blatant deafness, I fear. Chomsky has, as you have been told before by others, told people to think for themselves, to take all suggestions under advisement and come up with their own solutions.

Katrina vanden Heuvel seems to have picked up on this thought: in a recent issue or blog post at the Nation, she asked why ‘we’ (the proggies) are telling OWS what to do, when we have all these organizations, study groups, publications, blogs, and so on and so forth

Stretch enough to hurt yourself. Did Van Den Heuvel mention Chomsky by name? I thought not. Your position boils down to “nobody make no stinkin’ suggestions” because, as you seem to think obvious, a suggestion is an order????

Actually, my main point about Chomsky is not that he’s new or old, but that he’s another person telling an Occupation what to do, instead of organizing whatever it is they think should be going on.

Katrina vanden Heuvel seems to have picked up on this thought: in a recent issue or blog post at the Nation, she asked why ‘we’ (the proggies) are telling OWS what to do, when we have all these organizations, study groups, publications, blogs, and so on and so forth.

Precisely.  The Occupations are an anomalous, delicate flower of chance surrounded by and the target of every sort of evil, much of it massive in wealth and power.  And they are as subject to weakness, error and misdemeanor as the rest of us.  They could be wiped out at any moment.  The social forces which ignited the Occupations are quite another matter.  Maybe you are the one to organize them better.  Get off their backs, and go to it!

RayLan, November 8 at 5:30 am

Happen to agree with Anarcissie and Michael.  Here’s
what I posted on another bulletin board yesterday:

Decent exposition by Chomsky on OWS, Boston, one hour
long if you can stand it. “Decent” is the only word I
can muster.

For all the right things he says, and there are many,
Chomsky is the apparent victim of a paradigm that’s
beyond fixing, the same ole’ stale thinking, the
belief the system can fix it all.

It’s time to replace old farts like Chomsky with
people who truly believe and speak with
determination, force and conviction. Working within
the system is not an option. Re-inventing it is the
only solution.

“Are you ready for the challenge?”

“Are you ready for some football?”

However, the brief description of Chomskys’ talk
misrepresents him via sound-bytes. Even so, Chomsky
cows to the powers that be, the political system in
place. Building the masses behind you doesn’t have to
translate, it had better not translate, to building a
powerful opposition.

I know, I know, it’s one possible scenario, but we
can do better than that, much better.

Let’s dismantle the political and economic basis upon
which this country was built and survived thus far—
count the hours and it’s demise and certain and
short-lived—and let’s instead re-build from ashes.

Again, it’s about time the people took control of
their political and economic destiny.

@OzarkMichael
“do-nothing Chomsky”

ROFLMAO

You should be so idle. Chomsky has done plenty - taking so much time to give this talk with a Q&A session is not nothing. He has spoken and written at length and formally protested -
But he is damned if he acts (trying to be a leader)and damned if he doesn’t (do nothing).
Your bigotry has all bases covered.
LOL
Keep posting - you demonstrate the classic reason why these talks and protests are necessary

Is it really a good idea to save the USA from itself, keeping it from a severe
financial, and therefore military, meltdown? Is that a better thing to do morally
than letting it crash and go down badly? My guess is that in future generations
the nuclear legacy that the Americans leave the world will be seen as by far the
most evil and negative move ever made by any empire, for it promises to
poison the entire biosphere of this planet for thousands of years to come. Over
time civilizations come and go, and when things break down it is not good to
have hundreds of nuclear plants and weapons storage areas that need constant,
expert supervision forever in order not to kill millions.

At this point in time we may well have crossed the line to a point where by far
the best thing to do is put a stop to the monsters who in secret gave this
disaster to the whole world. Remember, no congress or even any cabinet
meeting ever voted to split the atom. That was dreamed up by Einstein, still
mysteriously regarded as a hero in America, and brought to fruition behind a
wall of executive secrecy by Teller and Oppenheimer. Of course the Zionists and
Americans wanted to destroy Afghanistan, since those kind and simple people
set such a bad moral example; exporting food with a zero carbon footprint
could not be tolerated. Of course Gaddafi was an enemy, since his wealth was
shared, and his people had the highest standard of living in Africa. How can it
be a good ethical move to help save such a malevolent institution as the US
government which continues to plunder one innocent and religious nation after
another. Why not do the right thing and let it die?

It is human to be confused, I guess…..

The important anti-war and civil rights protests that took place in this country
were not questioning the abuse of power by the 1%.  They were begging them
to changepolicies and laws.

The OWS movement is questioning the financiers and politicians who have
taken control of the nation and whose actions have impacted our society in
many destructive ways. They are not claiming to have messianic hopes of
influencing the future history of the whole human race.

Most important, a movement in development is a place to learn. I’m grateful for
that.

OzarkMichael, November 6 at 9:09 pm

That is what’s happening all over the country. I have no clear idea why nearly everyone here wants to deny what they themselves MUST be seeing.

I beg that you clearly understand that these people, here and on the streets, represent a very small minority of the liberal American population.

Re: Keone

Your comment: ”“This is a brand new movement with
no equivalent in our
lifetime. ”  Someone commented before me.

Where does he/she think old geezers like me have
been?”

To quote a Shirley Temple movie, your comment
“reeks of impropriety”.

“This is a brand new movement with no equivalent in our
lifetime. ”  Someone commented before me. 

Where does he/she think old geezers like me have been? Try look up the Vietnam war or the peace movement etc. etc. etc.

In fact: This stuff has been going on for 5000 years since Narmer formed the first nation-state on the planet in Egypt.  I guess that has worked out real well for the Egyptians hasn’t it?  Oh I forgot, they are just as exploited as the rest of us and have their own protests.  OOps.

On and on and on in the circle game.  History is a nice subject to study.  Norm Chomsky at least has a sense of history.  The babies in the OWS movement have little it seems.  The think they invented protest and awareness of being exploited.  Not so.

I agree that Occupiers need no help from do-nothing Chomsky since the Occupiers are already very active.

At the 2:30 mark of the following video the Occupiers begin doing quite a lot of things:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/210009.php

@ Anarcissie

Chomsky has throughout his life given talks to diverse groups of people. Many of them activists, many who have gone on to become activists, (like Norman G. Finkelstein for example), many others who find what he has to say very difficult to swallow. He has also published about 100 or so books. I have heard countless stories from people who through reading or hearing him speak, have had their who worldview changed, including many in the military.

As far as I know, he has never endeavored to become a leader of any movement, although I believe he did take a part in organizing against the Vietnam war.

He is an incredible resource.

One thing I have also noticed is that people are always asking him for help and advice.

I think you may be wasting your mental energy trying to maintain some kind of image of him as a useless, obsolete, over-rated figure, but perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

@Anarcissie
”  If they think something should be done, let them do it themselves. “
Chomsky resists leadership at every point and has continually repeated that the OWS associations need to learn from themselves how to proceed. He actually says ‘You shouldn’t listen to me’

It doesn’t appear that George Soros is behind OWS.

”“We ran into a limit we didn’t know we had because
we’ve never seen such an explosion of donations,” AFGJ
national coordinator Chuck Kauffman told me.

No doubt the success and persistence of Occupy Wall
Street will eventually attract some big donors. But so
far it appears there is no shadowy financier committing
class-treason by financing Occupy Wall Street.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44892333/Occupy_Wall_Street_Flush_With_Cash_But_Not_From_Soros

Chomsky agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy.

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=16532

Chomsky is correct when he says that OWS will move forward when it can get
enough public support, but he still calls it a significant development. 

There’s much confusion about the nature of a protest like this. The demands
I’ve heard, that the OWS has to “offer solutions,” “must come up with a
platform,” “announce who the leaders are” and so on _and “very soon”_ are
totally unrealistic. This is a brand new movement with no equivalent in our
lifetime. The Occupy movement is operating with extreme limitations. As
opposed to the ruling parties, it is not supported with the money from the 1% 
and it doesn’t even get enough accurate and fair reporting from the mass
media. Possibly, quite a lot of undermining is going on.

When you consider how many years the abuse of institutionalized power took to
reach this point, you can’t expect that a click of a button will bring a quick
reversal. This is not about the instant gratification that business has embedded
in our culture and that so many have embraced and got used to.

If people don’t want to support an evolving movement with the unavoidable
moments of disorganization, transformation, and isolated cases of unwanted
behavior, they can always stay with the comfortable, “neatly organized and lawful” mess of traditional politics. Change never comes in a tidy, little package.

The OWS protesters may or may not be able to move things forward but, if it
does, it won’t be by leaps and bounds. This may just be the first chapter of a
larger, future movement for all we know.

It is fair to say though that _they don’t owe us_ anything.  It is we who owe
them a great deal of support if we feel they’re struggling for the right causes. I
will only withdraw my support if OWS becomes an arm of the ruling parties.

The protest can be supported by your physical presence and/or the donation of goods,
services, and cash. Your positive thoughts and understanding are crucial.  Please think: you’ve got nothing to lose.

Chomsky has spent most of his political life lecturing passive liberals about stuff they already believed in, after which they do not seem to have done anything.  I don’t know how much advice he has to give activists who have actually accomplished something, especially in the public relations area.  And personally, I am pretty tired of great leaders popping up and telling OWS or other activists where to go and what to do.  If they think something should be done, let them do it themselves.

ardee-full-of-hate,

I’m going to have to insist you are lying. How do I know you’re lying? Well, according to you, if you don’t agree with me you must be lying.

It’s an odd rationalization, I know. Karma is a bitch.

-

Obviously you carefully choose what you like from media sources and present your choices as “evidence”.

Media Matters and Move-on, both hugely supportive of OWS, finds its largest support from wealthy democrats on our side, the liberal side, of politics. That includes political activist and benefactor, George Soros - ‘Move along folks, nothing to see here’.

All the while you attempt to claim that only the Koch Brother involve themselves in politics and policy. That naivete is incredible. - I was right about you.

Who paid for the reported 37 chartered buses that showed up at the OWS event last month?  Who paid for the leased Portalets? Who paid for the contract EMT’s to be on-hand? New York State didn’t pay for those things. Nor did the city. Those expensive items were coordinated and privately funded. (Alliance for Global Justice states it acts as a clearinghouse for OWS events - AGJ is largely funded by George Soros and his partners). According to you this means OWS is the wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros. Well, I don’t believe that but, you must believe it.

If you’re going to present search engine results as ‘evidence’ of your claims why not choose this one and defend it just as ferociously (blindly)?

louiss123, November 6 at 8:34 am

You are certainly free to run from the light of truth as you wish. Considering that the Koch’s have freely admitted to birthing ,operating and using the Tea Party in order to achieve their own personal goals for our governance your words fall as empty rhetoric that ignores truth in favor of silly partisanship.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Koch+Brother+statement+on+Tea+Party+involvement&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI

chomsky:
[ows] “shld get public on their side”, [only thus] “wld be able to reverse nat’l crises”, and
“obtain small but substantial victories” appear harmonic and very melodic—alas w.o an
ounce of protreptic value.

thus, to me, his above sayings do not represent advisement.

in add’t, i aver, that no human being [including chomsky] can decypher the meanings [yes,
many; thus the plural] in, say, “reversing nat’l crises”.

and especially in plain view that some americans never had it this good in 4 c of u.s
existence.

and, also, in view that just 3 y ago 98% of americans affirmed that the ship is not even
yawing, let alone careening off into any nat’l crisis.

the question arises, why chomsky does not offer ows even one advice or anything that
teaches or s’mthing that we do not already know?

is this naked avoidance about also protecting israel and ashkenaic banksters from scrutiny
and their denial of pal’n ROR [which is chomsky’s wish also] and establishment of one state
in excanaan in which descendants of canaanites [such as hamites, nabateans, hittites,
arameans, hebrews, et al] wld be sole masters there instead of [nonshemitic/nonhamitic]
ashkenazim?

recall, please, that arameans, an arab people, arrived in canaan a 1000yrs before hebrews
did. and it was their language that canaanites [including even israelites and judeans] spoke
for at least two millennia.

Well duh! Public sentiment on their side? OWS had better get focused.—-
*ardee..you really think you can lump the tea party into one group “wholly
owned by Koch industries”. Please..that kind of thinking is why so many on the
left are viewed as intellectually lazy, childish, whining assholes.
Social justice..break that word down..social means all of us..even business
owners..justice means we follow laws, which means we follow the constitution..
(yeah right).
Some of you think if you sound intellectual in your prose that that makes you
right. If we do not find a couple areas that we ALL agree on, then 10 years from
now we will be in the same old tired place. Would it kill you to try looking at
things differently?(its called nueroplasticity, creating new pathways in the brain)
Just sticking with the same old tired anti-capitalist rants will get you NOWHERE.
Like someone said..we would rather be right about our opinions than do what
works.

As polls show that a large number of the American public are sympathetic to the goals of the OWS movement one might rejoice in the early success of this movement. This can readily be shown to be true by the plethora of propagandists coming out of the woodwork to deny, diminish and deflect the facts of events at every progressive forum extant.

Whether this movement and its concurrent sympathetic following continues to grow, develop and evolve yet remains to be seen. But one thing is certain, the widespread dissatisfaction of the people of this nation is now rather obvious whereas, before OWS and its numerous alter egos throughout our nation, only the voices of those who owned much of the media, namely the Tea Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, and their ilk was heard throughout the land.

gerard
“It is necessary not only to listen to Chomsky but to think”

If is very hard to do one and not the other. Chomksy almost forces one to think - otherwise one could hardly call it listening.

It is so important to have these , for want of a better word, intellectual leaders to the popular movement. What is noteworthy is how they are NOT interested in leading but articulating the goals and ideas around which this grass roots power (and that power can be formidable) can rally.
We need to remember that the corporate/political parasite cannot survive without a host on which to feed. We need to cut off its blood supply - that is execute consumer boycotts and worker revolts -  Yes it curtails and thwarts the root problem - unregulated capitalism - in the form of the first expression out of Chomsky’s mouth - ‘neo-liberal globalism’, a term I used and which was flamed as BS by the usual trolls.

For the first time since the tidal wave of protests surged out of NYC on September 17, the ripples are losing energy. The scientific reason for such a systemic energy loss would be the competing force of friction and time. In this analogy, the pundits (i.e. Fox News) are providing the friction, but the protesters themselves are responsible for allowing the time to pass without taking full advantage of the intensity of this wave.

To further flog the analogy, the point has now been reached where idealism is less a sail and more an anchor.

In the pragmatic and intersecting worlds of politics and economics realists enjoy the greatest success. Idealism can be a force for change, but if it fails to take solid form then idealism is a concept with an expiration date.

This appears to be a sticking point for many avid Occupy-ers who proudly exclaim that no leader, no selected committee, no group should be allowed to speak for them at the table.

Instead, many advocates are so invested that they view any critique of the movement’s actions as a direct attack on the substance of the message (remember, “I support the soldiers, not the war”). Shooting the messenger is counterproductive.

The Occupy movement needs to find its next step without alienating a huge percentage of the 99% it claims to represent. There are many of us–a legion of citizens more comfortable with a remote control than a protest sign–who have heard your message. And we like what we hear.

Now we are just waiting to see the plan.

As an afterthought; think of it in terms of actual
warfare. If I am on the battlefield with you I don’t
worry about whether we agree upon every aspect of life. 
I want to know can I trust you to have my back,
if I’ve got yours….... right here, right now.  We
both see the need, regarding THIS situation, to fight
together because we are STRONGER that way.

We can debate other issues after that, in a fair debate. We can argue till the cows come home in a fair “fight”.  But right now, we all need to be in this together, regardless of our differences.

Quote: “Noam Chomsky had a simple message for
protesters at Occupy Boston last month: To change
their country, they must first get the public on
their side. Then they can make big demands.”

This is true, and it’s very simple.  It’s easy to do
and the ONE PERCENTERS know this.  Consider this…
do you think they would spend so much money in order
to sway (or more accurately misinform) the public if
THEY thought their position would be an easy sell. 
Of course they wouldn’t.  Not only are they not
stupid they are penny-pinchers.  For every dollar
they spend they EXPECT a return of one sort or
another.

Obviously, they look at it from the POV that says
“How do you move the masses?”  But we don’t need to
do that, because we are the masses.

All one needs to do is to say to themselves “How
would “I” show the most cantankerous right-
leaning or/else politically flippant person I know
why this matters to them (and then follow through).  Additionally, find the
issue we agree upon, the popular sentiment…. and
work together on those, even if it means that after
that, and very possibly, on all other matters we would part ways.

This would also accomplish one very, very important thing, and that would be that it would build trust.  When it comes to solving problems, especially BIG problems, I don’t worry whether I like you or not.  I figure out whether I can trust you or not.

This is what the “overlords” fear, because if this happens they are doomed and they know it. Stick together.

In my opinion it’s imperative to break-up into smaller, more focused, better controlled groups spread throughout the community and not concentrated strictly to downtown commercial districts.  We must function within the establishment to progress towards
changing it.

Chomsky brings here some needed analysis from classical, radical leftist traditions. For example he emphasizes the need to occupy and take over work places (not just plazas), the need for really branching out into the actual working class. Chomsky is a student of Bakunin and Kropotkin, may he live forever.

As usual the liberals bog themselves down with too many issues at one time. They
are too divided. Good intentions but no leadership with guts. The fascists know
this and laugh all the way to the bank.

Chomsky is absolutely right about the necessity of the occupy movement getting the public on its side. I have identified about 20 segments of the populace that are potential or actual opponents of America’s corpocracy. They just need to be mobilized and organized. The occupy community could help do that by joining The Democracy Coalition. To see what I mean go to http://www.uschamberofdemocracy.com

Gary Brumback

Please put up the script!  Chomsky is too precise and detailed to service UTube access. It is necessary not only to listen to Chomsky, but to think, to go back and review, and to think again.
P.S.  the sirens in the background seem almost intentional.  What occasioned that? Or is New York always in crisis?  I doubt it.