[quote]redswingline wrote:
Do pretty well on Wall Street, our Noam…
…One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest one percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor – like eighty percent of the population – pay off the rich.”
But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution – just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one email. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are “trying to help suffering people.” …
[/quote]
As someone fairly well read in Chomsky I don’t seem to remember where he talks about class struggle too much, in fact, in the Chomsky Reader interview he is quite overtly non-Marxist to the point of near anti-Marxism. I don’t remember him advocating wealth redisribution either, but I do seem to remeber an advocacy of a directly democratic, anarchist welfare system like Switzerland. Not the same as wealth redistribution. Still, thats by the wayside, I mean I don’t think anyone could refute his works on Central America or Vietnam, equally his views on the role of intellectuals was pretty amazing and during my English language studies I owed him a lot. Let’s also not forget Prospect magazine (the political publication of the year apparently) named him the world’s top intellectual. I personally think there are many people far more easy to access than Chomsky, but I see why other ‘thinkers’ are threatened.
Hmmm, this is one of those taken for granted statements that just begs to be refuted, but it’s Friday night and I don’t have the time, inclination, or very soon the sobriety.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
As someone fairly well read in Chomsky I don’t seem to remember where he talks about class struggle too much, in fact, in the Chomsky Reader interview he is quite overtly non-Marxist to the point of near anti-Marxism. I don’t remember him advocating wealth redisribution either, but I do seem to remeber an advocacy of a directly democratic, anarchist welfare system like Switzerland. Not the same as wealth redistribution. Still, thats by the wayside, I mean I don’t think anyone could refute his works on Central America or Vietnam, equally his views on the role of intellectuals was pretty amazing and during my English language studies I owed him a lot. Let’s also not forget Prospect magazine (the political publication of the year apparently) named him the world’s top intellectual. I personally think there are many people far more easy to access than Chomsky, but I see why other ‘thinkers’ are threatened.[/quote]
I have to disagree with your analysis of Noam Chomsky and the quality of his work. He attempts to oversimplify the whole concept of geopolitical thought by raising himself up onto a platform of moral relativism and superiority. Typical intellectual crap, bolsheviks usually do that sort of thing to make themselves impervious to the attacks of the “common people”. Noam Chomsky as an anti-Marxist, I am not sure what books you were reading, but in my experience with his writing, he isn’t Marxist, rather much worse, his work smacks of Maosit tomes. He invokes the importance of completely eliminating the existence of divine influence upon society and the elimination of the capitalist state. Centralized government is very much a part of his crooked beliefs.
One of my favorite Chomsky features are his self citations, he cites his prior works in almost all of his books, pretty much ad nauseum. At the same time, the man has his professional training in linguistics, what a perfect specialization for someone who intends to fool the public into believing their kooky ideas. If you can make something subversive sound less-subversive, more people will accept that philosophy. That is what Chomsky does, he take the old regurgitated ideas of totalitarian governments passed and reformulates them in a more acceptable verbal presentation, thus taking the edge off his crazy ideology. Nothing new here, same old crap. Also, the man is a total pussy when it comes to debates, he knows his ideas won’t stand up to scrutiny for a second. I remember seeing him get his assed kicked by Bill Bennett, they were debating 9/11, Bennett made him look like a kindergartner. Chomsky material only works on college campuses, i.e. the not-real world.
This reminds me of the 2004 election when right wingnuts were accusing Theresa Heinz of cheating on her taxes.
A friend of mine jumped on that bandwagon and stated that Theresa had only paid approximately 18% income tax.
At which point I reminded my friend that Theresa’s income was capital gains not personal income. That lady does not work. Capital gains was 15% the last time I checked.
[/quote]
Thank you!
I always enjoy watching left wingers defend the rich. It’s quite rare but fun to watch.