Forum Post: Noam Chomsky on Work and Human Creativity
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 9, 2012, 2:07 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 1 hour ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 7 months ago by gsw
2 comments 11 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 2 years ago by grapes
15 comments 2 years ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
Take your Chomsky trash elsewhere. The government-approved-dissenter has no credibility here. Even when he tells the truth, the purpose is a larger lie.
He shares the fate of old whores and prostitutes everywhere. Sooner or later no one wants what they are selling.
"Take your Chomsky trash elsewhere."
No way! There will be much more Chomsky-material posted by me in the future.
"The government-approved-dissenter has no credibility here."
What are you talking about?
"the purpose is a larger lie."
What are you talking about?
Actually I think that discussions of work are relevant to today's society; the question becomes, how do we inspire people to work?
While some think of equality in terms of equal opportunity through employment, still others think of it in terms of equally and freely distributed resources; this presents an obvious problem.
If we examine, for example, the Native American, we find that native males, freed from much of life's labor by their women, often devoted far more time to creative endeavors, the beautification of their world.
We do enjoy the creative endeavor as an expense of energy that provides its own reward; financial remuneration is of less concern. Likewise, block labor or that which is bounded by the limit of a specific task, no matter how intricate, eventually evolves into some menial, abhorred.
The problem is how we reconcile this with a need of resources that is dependent on the industrial machine and the literally millions of related and unrelated tasks as block labor. And there are very few, however well educated, that escape the bounds of an assigned duty, as necessary to some form of enterprise.
What the industrial machine, coupled with food resources, has allowed us to do is exponentially expand population; if left to the entrepreneurship of the pre-industrial age, we would never be able to sufficiently reinvent enterprise, as an expense of energy that provides access to resources, sufficient to support our population. If some are not dedicated as worker bees to the machine, with financial remuneration as sole reward, we cannot survive.
In a modern, wealthy society the only right thing to do is to democratize the economic institutions so that workers and communities have control over their own lives and work, and strive for a society based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
I agree, take what you need and leave the rest. It appears some need a lot.
The best society is one where everyone can have a decent life. Free health care, school, university etc, and decent social safety nets are things that will contribute to a more humane and civilized society. Some need more help than others, but in a wealthy modern society we can afford to take care of all the ones who need it.
Why dose he continue to be relevant? To anything?
Well, I can tell you why if you're willing to approach this in an open minded manner, and I think, since that is precisely what Noam does - approach things in an open minded manner - that we should extend this courtesy.
Noam is relevant for two reasons: one, he can attract an audience, a following, and two, because he articulates that which many of us are already thinking subconsciously. He has already deciphered those varied emotions, the result of numerous stimuli, that live in our subconscious, which perhaps we simply do not have the time or ability to address.
I have friends that are very much like him; I classify them as highly intelligent - they are beyond average, with varied interests - culturally, politically, scientifically; they are readers, researchers, and to some extent communicators - ideas, of course, as a shared experience. And as such, the result of life circumstance, they often devote huge blocks of time and effort to deep thought as applied to these shared societal concerns, that he speaks of.
We don't go to hear, we go to "listen" - to have our thoughts articulated. We may not always agree, but either way, those mixed emotions will blend to a final hue as some more refined thought, the result of his input.
The other thing I would add, is that these people, whom we may have a tendency to label as Left, are often very conservative in their personal lives; they are driven to truth by a personal dedication to conservationism that outstrips the fanciful thought that inhabits the minds of so many others.
Noam is relevant because he makes an effort to be relevant, to pay attention, to keep himself abreast - more, he is an intellectual challenge that affords us the opportunity to articulate our own thoughts. In that sense, the voice becomes a source - a tool of society.