الدعاية في النظام الديمقراطي هي بمثابة الهراوات في الدولة الشمولية
Noam ChomskyThere are lots of things I don't understand - say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. -- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest -- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.
Noam ChomskyTag: deconstructionism french-postmodernism
That comes to about one hundred million people in India alone from 1947 to 1980. But we don’t call that a crime of democratic capitalism. If we were to carry out that calculation throughout the world… I wont even talk about it. But Sen is correct; they’re not intended, just like the Chinese famine wasn’t intended. But they are ideological and institutional crimes, and capitalist democracy and its advocates are responsible for them, in whatever sense supporters of so-called Communism are responsible for the Chinese famine. We don’t have the entire responsibility, but certainly a large part of it
Noam ChomskyTag: capitalism noam-chomsky crimes-against-humanity communist-china capitalist-democracy chinese-famine
What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.
Noam ChomskyIf you abandon the political arena, somebody is going to be there. Corporations aren't going to go home and join the PTA. They are going to run things.
Noam ChomskyTag: politics corporations
These facts have been completely removed from history. One has to practically scream them from the rooftops.
Noam Chomsky في العشرينات و أوائل الثلاثينات أوضح هارولج لزويل مؤسس علم الاتصالات و أحد منظري العلوم السياسية المرموقين ، أنه لا يجب أن نستسلم للدوجمات الديموقراطية ،التي تقول بأن الرجال قادرون على الحكم على مصالحهم ، فهم ليسوا كذلك ! نحن اكثر الناس قدرة على تحديد و الحكم على المصالح العامة ، و بالتالي انطلاقا من تلك القاعدة الأخلاقية البسيطة لا بد و أن نتأكد من أنه لن تتاح لهم الفرصة للتصرف بناء على سوء أحكامهم
فيما يسمى اليوم بالدولة الشمولية أو الدولة العسكرية هو أمر غير مستحيل ، فقط عليك أن تمسك بهراوات فوق رؤوسهم ، و إذا خرجوا عن ذلك الخط يمكنك أن تحطم الهراوات فوق رؤوسهم ، و لكن في مجتمع أكثر ديموقراطية و حرية فقدت هذه الوسيلة ،فعليك إذن اللجوء إلى أساليب الدعاية و المنطق ، فالدعاية في النظام الديموقراطي هي بمثابة الهراوة في الدولة الشمولية
فالدعاية في النظام الديموقراطي هي بمثابة الهراوات في الدولة الشمولية، وهذا أمر يتسم بالحكمة، ومرة أخرى
Noam Chomsky...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation.
Noam ChomskyTag: belief atheism burden-of-proof explanation atheist question
I am not a committed pacifist. I would not hold that it is under all imaginable circumstances wrong to use violence, even though use of violence is in some sense unjust. I believe that one has to estimate relative justices. But the use of violence and the creation of some degree of injustice can only be justified on the basis of the claim and the assessment-which always ought to be undertaken very, very seriously and with a good deal of scepticism that this violence is being exercised because a more just result is going to be achieved.
Noam Chomsky« prima precedente
Pagina 15 di 16.
prossimo ultimo »
Data privacy
Imprint
Contact
Diese Website verwendet Cookies, um Ihnen die bestmögliche Funktionalität bieten zu können.