| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: john zerzan / who is chomsky? |
 |
|
|
|
has anyone heard of john zerzan? anyone read any of his books? i saw him in a documentary a while back, surplus - terrorized into being consumers, i think it was. i've read a little bit on the web on him, he's got some pretty radical ideas! i might pick up some of his books - i was just interested if anyone else had come across him and what they thought?
from wiki;
John Zerzan (born 1943) is an American anarchist and primitivist philosopher and author. His works criticize agricultural civilization as inherently oppressive, and advocate drawing upon the ways of life of prehistoric humans as an inspiration for what a free society should look like. Some of his criticism has extended as far as challenging domestication, language, symbolic thought (such as mathematics and art) and the concept of time.
more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan
theres an interview here - http://www.primitivism.com/zerzan.htm
heres his article on chomsky which i thought some might find interesting
| Quote: | Who is Chomsky?
Noam Chomsky is probably the most well-known American anarchist, somewhat curious given the fact that he is a liberal-leftist politically, and downright reactionary in his academic specialty, linguistic theory. Chomsky is also, by all accounts, a generous, sincere, tireless activist -- which does not, unfortunately, ensure his thinking has liberatory value.
Reading through his many books and interviews, one looks in vain for the anarchist, or for any thorough critique. When asked point-blank, "Are governments inherently bad?" his reply (28 January 1988) is no. He is critical of government policies, not government itself, motivated by his "duty as a citizen." The constant refrain in his work is a plea for democracy: "real democracy," "real participation," "active involvement," and the like.
His goal is for "a significant degree of democratization," not the replacement of political rule by a condition of no rule called anarchy. Hardly surprising, then, that his personal practice consists of reformist, issues-oriented efforts like symbolic tax resistance and ACLU membership. Instead of a critique of capital, its forms, dynamics, etc., Chomsky calls (1992) for "social control over investment. That's a social revolution." What a ridiculous assertion.
His focus, almost exclusively, has been on U.S. foreign policy, a narrowness that would exert a conservative influence even for a radical thinker. If urging increased involvement in politics goes against the potentially subversive tide toward less and less involvement, Chomsky's emphasis on statecraft itself gravitates toward acceptance of states. And completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two), makes him less relevant still.
In terms of inter-government relations, the specifics are likewise disappointing. A principle interest here is the Middle East, and we see anything but an anarchist or anti-authoritarian analysis. He has consistently argued (in books like The Fateful Triangle, 1983) for a two-state solution to the Palestinian question. A characteristic formulation: "Israel within its internationally recognized borders would be accorded the rights of any state in the international system, no more, no less." Such positions fit right into the electoral racket and all it legitimizes. Along these lines, he singled out (Voices of Dissent, 1992) the centrist Salvadoran politician Ruben Zamora when asked who he most admired.
Chomsky has long complained that the present system and its lap-dog media have done their best, despite his many books in print, to marginalize and suppress his perspective. More than a little ironic, then, that he has done his best to contribute to the much greater marginalization of the anarchist perspective. He has figured in countless ads and testimonials for the likes of The Nation, In These Times, and Z Magazine, but has never mentioned Anarchy, Fifth Estate, or other anti-authoritarian publications. Uncritically championing the liberal-left media while totally ignoring our own media can hardly be an accident or an oversight. In fact, I exchanged a couple of letters with him in 1982 over this very point (copies available from me). He gave a rather pro-left, non-sequitur response and has gone right on keeping his public back turned against any anarchist point of view.
Chomsky's newest book of interviews, Class Warfare, is promoted in the liberal-left media as "accessible new thinking on the Republican Revolution." It supposedly provides the answers to such questions as "Why, as a supporter of anarchist ideals, he is in favor of strengthening the federal government." The real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all.
Long a professor of linguistics and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he achieved fame and fortune for his conceptions of the nature of language. Professor Chomsky sees language as a fixed, innate part of some "essential human nature" (Barsamian, 1992). Language develops along an intrinsically determined path, very much like a physical organ. In this sense, Chomsky says language "simply arose" (1988) and that we should study it as "we study any problem in biology" (1978).
In other words, language, that most fundamental part of culture, has no real relationship with culture and is a matter of instinct-driven formation through biological specialization.
Here, as everywhere else, Chomsky cannot even seem to imagine any problematics about origins of alienation or fundamental probings about what symbolic culture really is, at base. Language for Chomsky is a strictly natural phenomenon, quite unrelated to the genesis of human culture or social development. A severely backward, non-radical perspective, not unrelated to his unwillingness to put much else into question, outside of a very narrow political focus.
The summer 1991 issue of Anarchy magazine included "A brief Interview with Noam Chomsky on Anarchy, Civilization, & Technology." Not surprisingly, it was a rather strange affair, given the professor's general antipathy to all three topics. The subject of anarchy he ignored altogether, consonant with his avoidance of it throughout the years. Responding to various questions about civilization and technology, he was obviously as uncomfortable as he was completely unprepared to give any informed responses. Dismissive of new lines of thought that critically re-examine the nature of civilization, Chomsky was obviously ignorant of this growing literature and its influence in the anti-authoritarian milieu.
Concerning technology, he was, reluctantly, more expansive, but just as in the dark as with the question of civilization. His responses repeated all the discredited, unexamined pro-tech cliches, now less and less credible among anarchists: technology is a mere tool, a "quite neutral" phenomenon to be seen only in terms of specific, similarly unexamined uses. Chomsky actually declares that cars are fine; it's only corporate executives that are the problem. Likewise with robotics, as if that drops from heaven and has no grounding in domination of nature, division of labor, etc. In closing, he proclaimed that "the only thing that can possibly resolve environmental problems is advanced technology." Yes: more of the soul-destroying, eco-destroying malignancy that has created the current nightmare!
In the fall of 1995, Chomsky donated much of the proceeds from a well-attended speech on U.S. foreign policy to Portland's 223 Freedom and Mutual Aid Center, better known as the local anarchist infoshop. As if to honor its generous benefactor appropriately, the infoshop spent the money first of all on a computer system, and several months later financed a booklet promoting the infoshop and the ideas behind it. Among the most prominent quotes adorning the pamphlet is one that begins, "The task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically realizable..." The attentive reader may not need me to name the author of these words, nor to point out this less than qualitatively radical influence. For those of us who see our task as aiding in the utter abolition of our "modern industrial society," it is repellant in the extreme to find its realization abjectly celebrated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salim201
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I think his main point is that Chomsky is more a carreerist within the current system, rather than a crusader against it, and he's probably right to an extent. In an overwhelmingly consumerist society I think you have to start off with obvious and uncontentious notions before you move on to anything more radical. I think its just out of pragmatism that Chomsky chooses to support the internation consensus on Palestine, and accept the immutable structure of states. There are more serious short-term issues that we all agree on, so why not focus on those! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
its not so much zerzans thoughts on chomsky i'm interested in, i just thought others might find the article interesting - its his other ideas i'd like to learn more about
if you check the documentary i mentioned, surplus - terrorized into being consumers you'll get a better idea what he's about. its quite a good film, nicely edited, good music. theres this bit with bush in it saying 'we cannot let the terrorists achieve the objective of frightening our nation to the point where people don't shop'! ( weird, cos i don't remember that bit in bin ladens fatwa against america, i thought it was all about americas military occupation of the arabian peninsula, american aggression against iraqis and american support for israel and refusal to recognise palestinians ... that bit about shopping must have been in a subsequent fatwa ... )
basically, zerzan thinks civilization now is madness - 'its destroying everything and just has to go' he'd like to see 'a gigantic project of dismantling. getting rid of all this stuff that rests of the destruction of nature - that separates us from nature, that has people on this treadmill to constantly work and constantly consume'
some of his books;
Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilisation
Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections
Elements of Refusal
Future Primitive
Questioning Technology: Tool, Toy or Tyrant
an introduction;
| Quote: | Today's crisis is pervasive and deepening, accelerating its impact on all of life in our biosphere. Many are now beginning to question the nature and validity of modernity/mass society/the techno-culture. Maybe it's the problem, not the solution. It could be that the dynamics of this frightening, worsening reality goes all the way back to civilization itself. What is driving it all forward to a non-future seems to go deeper than capitalism, for example. We must face truly stark times and begin, together, to question all the givens and move toward solutions that undo what some very basic institutions are delivering.
When people began domesticating animals and plants just 10,000 years ago, our species began a downhill slide. This is the premise of the anti-civilization movement, which is based on several decades of archaeological and ethnographic research. There is mounting, convincing evidence that domestication of animals and plants brought previously unknown side effects: hierarchy, gender inequality, disease, haves and have-nots, soil depletion and the creation of deserts, and a host of other ills. These negative trends have continued to build momentum, and now appear to be leading to worldwide catastrophe.
John Zerzan is a leading theorist of the anti-civilization movement. John's arguments are based in part on an assessment of human prehistory that is now part of the standard university curriculum. Contrary to long-held stereotypes that described prehistoric human life as "nasty, brutish, and short," for the past few decades, scholars have considered our two-million-year existence as gatherers and hunters as the only successful human adaptation to the planet. Origins alone do not contain the whole solution to the why of the emptiness and the deteriorating quality of social existence today. But looking at how life was once and for such a long time, combined with existing indigenous wisdom, may point to a way forward. |
http://www.johnzerzan.net/
i think i'll have to pick up some of his work  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| He sounds interesting but his basic idea seems to be that he wishes for another 'great flood' - a la Noah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin
Joined: 10 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | | his basic idea seems to be that he wishes for another 'great flood' - a la Noah. |
exactly. I for one always thought this guy's writing was quite pathetic. On a planet with 5 billion inhabitants to call for an abolition of civilisation, that's just bare madness. Post-modernism gone wild if you ask me.
What's the most disgusting is that he's hijacking the word Anarchism for this, while everything he says is at odds with this tradition (which nobody in his right mind could say about chomsky, even though he's an old reformist). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salim201
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| What he argues is that we simply won't survive as a species continuing down this route, and i agree. What he posits is radical to us now but we should understand the difference between what society is and what it could be. If the techonological world brings us war and conflict in greater ways we should look to something else to limit this dysgenic trend. When societies are merely managed rather than governed, by big business and consumerism, then there is a problem, and it can't be sustained by the exploitation of third world countries for much longer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Martin wrote: | | I for one always thought this guy's writing was quite pathetic. On a planet with 5 billion inhabitants to call for an abolition of civilisation, that's just bare madness. Post-modernism gone wild if you ask me. |
care to elucidate a bit? like i've said i've only read a few bits of his on the web and heard some of his views on a documentary - what work of his have you read? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
