Explaining what the far left anarchists have in common with the far right anarchists. They may disagree on economics but when it comes to the Constitution and the Jewish state they are in synch.
I am marginally on "the left" and yet I am so annoyed by Chomsky so regularly I cannot bear to even read anything by him. Howard Zinn however I have read.
This is what I think figures like Zinn and Chomsky think.
That power dynamics equate to morality. If someone is perceived as oppressed they have the absolute moral high ground, and oppression according to Zinn is simply a power imbalance.
From what I have heard from Chomsky he believes the same exact thing.
So very predictably that simply lay blame at the feet of whomever they think is the most powerful in any given situation. It's like that every single time. When you are talking about Native Americans or Black or any minority group people in US history often times you are 100% justified in making this claim. However when you extrapolate this to the founding documents of the US, or to various international conflicts, or to many things really it all falls apart.
People are drawn to this ideology because it makes them feel like they are fighting against the elites and the powerful and sticking up for the voiceless and that can make people feel good, and even self-righteous. But if you take this to it's logical extreme you end up making some huge errors in moral judgement and just like any other extreme belief system you become blind to reality.
I suspect much of your annoyance at Chomsky and his ideology is because I perceive you as basically on the "center-left" whereas Chomsky and Zinn are very much on the far left. Your analysis of them is quite spot on. This is another aspect of them which is deeply annoying and has led them both astray in so many ways. Appreciations again for your thoughtful comments.
I am marginally on "the left" and yet I am so annoyed by Chomsky so regularly I cannot bear to even read anything by him. Howard Zinn however I have read.
This is what I think figures like Zinn and Chomsky think.
That power dynamics equate to morality. If someone is perceived as oppressed they have the absolute moral high ground, and oppression according to Zinn is simply a power imbalance.
From what I have heard from Chomsky he believes the same exact thing.
So very predictably that simply lay blame at the feet of whomever they think is the most powerful in any given situation. It's like that every single time. When you are talking about Native Americans or Black or any minority group people in US history often times you are 100% justified in making this claim. However when you extrapolate this to the founding documents of the US, or to various international conflicts, or to many things really it all falls apart.
People are drawn to this ideology because it makes them feel like they are fighting against the elites and the powerful and sticking up for the voiceless and that can make people feel good, and even self-righteous. But if you take this to it's logical extreme you end up making some huge errors in moral judgement and just like any other extreme belief system you become blind to reality.
I suspect much of your annoyance at Chomsky and his ideology is because I perceive you as basically on the "center-left" whereas Chomsky and Zinn are very much on the far left. Your analysis of them is quite spot on. This is another aspect of them which is deeply annoying and has led them both astray in so many ways. Appreciations again for your thoughtful comments.