Noam Chomsky: 'The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history'

[CousinIT]

Last edited Sun Apr 29, 2018, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/noam-chomsky-republican-party-dangerous-organization-human-history/

. . .

LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about?

NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means.

There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. is moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing.

[IluvPitties]

1. The Reps are just the modern Nazis.

Neither better, nor worse.

[exboyfil]

2. It's bad

but I think the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany was a bigger threat.

[Amishman]

10. yup, as were the communist parties of Stalin and Mao. Shark jumping

idiotic over the top rhetoric is counter productive

I'd put some of the current day terrorist organizations ahead of them.

most dangerous currently in power in the developed world? that's probably about right

[pangaia]

27. But were/are those organizations so committed to destroying the entire planet for profit?

[Amishman]

36. Given a long enough timeline, I'd expect the answer would have been yes

They were a little focused on killing a significant percentage of the world immediately.

I can't imagine them giving a damn about climate change or any modern problems.

(substituting personal gain/power for the party elites for generic capitalist profit)

The Republicans are fucking awful, but compared to the hall of fame of human evil, the Pubes are little league.

[CrispyQ]

30. I disagree, but only because of nukes & climate change.

CO2 is Regularly Exceeding 410 Parts Per Million for First Time in Human History


But hey, a few lucky assholes got to make a shit ton of money.

[smirkymonkey]

3. K&R

[S.E. TN Liberal]

4. Any group composed of just conservatives is a danger to the planet, the people, and to peace. nm

[still_one]

5. Noam Chomsky: Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a 'bad mistake'

"Legendary linguist and activist Noam Chomsky thinks that progressives and left-wingers who didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton this year have badly miscalculated — and will now pay a very dear price."

........

"Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”


https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

[dalton99a]

7. +1

[certainot]

23. i wish chomsky, a media scholar, would also stop ignoring talk radio. that common attitude is why

the republican party is the most dangerous organization in the world.

chomsky's right about the republican party but it is a symptom, not the cause of why we're heading off the cliff.

if the GOP would spend $1000 for a 1 hr radio infomercial then 15 hrs/day x 1200 radio stations is worth $18MIL/day or $5BIL/year.

that's been going for 30 years and we're fucked until chomsky and other prominent activists and dems stop ignoring talk radio.

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. Wow. That was powerful!!

Greed is NOT good.

[BSdetect]

8. Keep it kicked

[Blue_true]

9. Now, if Norm can convince his "purity" compatriots of the reality he now sees.

It would be greatly appreciated by everyone that love this country and the world.

[ucrdem]

11. A little late for that eh.

For how many decades did he repeat his dumb toothpaste meme every four years? And get lauded as some kind of political genius? And now we have a guy who relentlessly sells himself as the better brand of ice cream (DLC-free! 99.4% pure!) and nobody seems to remember Noam's wisdom.

[ooky]

12. I don't think it takes a political genius to recognize this.

I think Noam is being more "Captain Obvious" in making this statement about the Republican Party. I agree wth him that they are very, very dangerous. Using the analogy of the Nazi's can of course be debated, but they are both very bad, and that's good enough to get my attention.

[hughee99]

13. If it weren't for republicans, there wouldn't be fossil fuel production anywhere on earth?

That's pretty astonishing.

[Bucky]

14. Is this the same Chomsky who said the two parties are indistinguishable?

[hughee99]

17. Yes, I believe this is the same guy.

"In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they’re really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn’t. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn’t see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn’t it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum."
Noam Chomsky, Interview by Adam Jones, February 20, 1990 (via absurdlakefront)

http://noam-chomsky.tumblr.com/post/20115121802/in-the-united-states-the-political-system-is-a

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. He is not incorrrect.

But like everything its not so cut and dry. Both parties have been shifting right in the areas of letting corporate America and the .1 % have more and more say in their policies. But Republicans have always held onto the social conservative issues, and the Democrats have pushed for socially progressive advancements.
Also that was written in 1990, in the last 20 years the Republican party has distanced themselves in an extreme way. They have evolved from a political party into a bonifide organized crime family. The biggest most powerful one in history. And they finally have their Don.

[pangaia]

29. I agree with you on this.

All is not so black and white. or red and green.
Or blue and red....

[Bucky]

35. He is incorrect

He's buying the Republican distortion of what Democrats stand for

It's true that since 1981 the Republicans have delivered lots of deficit spending and huge debts. But that is not their talking points, that is not their governing philosophy. They've not change their campaigning stance; they've just embraced hypocrisy.

As a history and economics teacher, I'm a little surprised at how superficial and wrong Chomsky is in this quote.

Republicans have never delivered on nor ever seriously pursued, their lip service to small government. In the 20th and 21st century, small government is just not a workable idea. It would damage the economy too much.

They say things like "small government" in order to get elected, but the last time they actually tried it, they caused the Great Depression.

Chomsky's also wrong about the Democrats. Democrats do believe in Keynesian economics. But keynesianism says you engage in deficit spending only when the business cycle slows down. When the deficit spending stimulates more economic activity, you're supposed to raise taxes and wipe out the deficits and reduce the debt. Democrats have been remarkably consistent about this.

Jimmy Carter had a budget plan that would produce a balanced budget by 1983. Both Clinton and Obama reduced deficits dramatically and tried to raise taxes even more than the Republicans allowed them to. The Democrats have always been in favor of balancing the budget at the right time.

Chomsky has a superficial view of what the two parties stand for, and that is why he can only deliver superficial slogans about how to compare them

[Garrett78]

34. It's the same Chomsky who said not voting for Hillary Clinton would be a huge mistake.

[geomon666]

15. He's been saying this for years.

Never has it been more true than it is now.

[EX500rider]

16. Well if had to choose between Mao or Pol Pot or Tamerlane...

or Stalin or Caligula or the Nazi's...or the Republican's I wouldn't have to think about it too long.

"dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life."
Is that in the Party platform? lol

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

18. I have said that for a couple of decades now...

... finally, I do not feel so lonely.

[BobTheSubgenius]

19. I believe that it's not that they intent to destroy.

They just don't care if they do, and combine that with the most potential for destruction of any group in human history.

[Locrian]

26. absolutely

It's not like it's worse "*now* - but then a lot of people initially loved Hitler, Stalin, etc.
It's the potential.

I kinda think "actual nuclear war" is pretty much a game over for everyone. Climate change - slower, but with the pretty much same end - with wars, famine etc all along that path to game over.

[VOX]

28. Until #45, I would have agreed. But Steve Bannon had malice aforethought.

He’s the destructive force who made all those nihilistic cabinet picks. He was clear about his desire to destroy institutions, etc.

And I’d bet the farm that he and 45 are still talking.

[pandr32]

20. Kicking

[SunSeeker]

21. K & R

[Nitram]

22. More dangerous than the Nazi Party? Or Pol Pot's regime? Or Stalin's Communist Party?

I wonder about Noam sometimes.

[VOX]

31. True. But in terms of potential destructiveness, 45 has nukes.

He has the capacity to destroy an entire planet. Can someone so volatile be trusted to be stabile? Can his mental health be trusted?

I don’t think anyone can answer conclusively. Therefore, 45 MUST be thrown out before he achieves his full potential as a destructive, nihilistic force.

[Nitram]

32. I guess I think the whole idea of calling anything or anyone the most whatever in history is totally

meaningless. I thought Chomsky was smarter than that.

[JCanete]

38. Well he is talking about total human annihilation, which would be bigger than previous scourges.

That said, Nazi Germany as an example, would probably have exploited the planet to an even worse degree than we have, had it prevailed, and I see no reason why a less open and egalitarian nation, one less built upon free-speech would have mitigated the power of money more effectively than our failed efforts here. So it does make the statement a little odd and hyperbolic. Republicans, by virtue only of not being able to be, are not as bad as Nazis, but I don't put it past us that we could descend quickly to that point and I don't see many in the Republican party who would suddenly find their anti-fascist voice should that opportunity arise here. There are plenty of fascists among them now, in places far too prominent.

[DBoon]

41. Global warming is potentially the end of civilization

Trump's regime not only denies it, but is going backward and encouraging use of fossil fuels

We are reaching warming conditions that have not existed since modern humans were on this planet.

Nazis and Communists may have practiced mass genocide, but neither has desired nor been able to completely end human civilization

[triron]

42. Trump is also a great danger to democracy and civilized ideals.

Perhaps in some ways the greatest danger ever.

[triron]

24. No wonder I feel so angry at Trump et al.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual. This is astounding for him to say.

[triron]

33. kick for visibility

[JCanete]

37. I only take issue with the notion that any fascist state, like Nazi Germany,

would have likely continued on a different trajectory than we are taking when it comes to destroying the planet. The republican party is simply a symptom of the power of capitalism and supply side economics, and that would probably have prevailed anywhere that had the production and natural resources to become the biggest kid on the block. Other nations have carved out less destructive niches where money hasn't yet steamrolled all real ideological policy, shaping even curriculum and what we worship around a dangerous mythology...but here where money is God, the outlook is pretty depressing.

[triron]

39. kick for visibility

[triron]

40. kick for visibility

[triron]

43. rec

[triron]

44. kick again

[Scurrilous]

45. K&R