Noam Chomsky - Wikiquote. Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Everybody is for peace. One can easily concoct imaginary situations in which it would be inadvisable, even immoral to do so . There are many things to object to in any society.
But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable. But I do think that China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Summation by Noam Chomsky: Rereading this review after eight years, I find little of substance that I would change if I were to write it today. I am not aware of any theoretical or experimental work that challenges its conclusions; nor, so far as I know, has there been any attempt to meet the criticisms that are raised in the review or to show that they are erroneous or ill- founded. Incidentally, tactical issues are basically moral issues. They have to do with human consequences.
This Christian parenting focused. This Christian parenting focused site is for parents of all stages and covers topics like discipline. The angry generation: Lack of parental discipline is blamed. Shocking video of waiter. Strict Affair - Lessons In Discipline And Obedience (1992) Student Nurses. Tailiens 3 (1992) Tiffany Mynx Affair (1992) Total Exposure (1992.
And if we're interested in, let's say, diminishing the amount of violence in the world, it's at least arguable and sometimes true that a terroristic act does diminish the amount of violence in the world. Hence a person who is opposed to violence will not be opposed to that terroristic act. He had nothing to say then, nor has he since, about the . He has nothing to say about the moral standards or the respect for international law of those who have permitted this tragedy. I speak of Senator Mansfield precisely because he is not a breast- beating superpatriot who wants America to rule the world, but is rather an American intellectual in the best sense, a scholarly and reasonable man - - the kind of man who is the terror of our age.
We are ready to develop unique papers according to your requirements, no matter how strict they are. Dissertation Writing Service; Write My Essay; Write My Paper. Religious Repression in China Persists (1992), Continuing. The Panchen Lama affair. We need to learn from the lessons of the disintegration of the Soviet. Introduction to Sociology/Print version. This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of. The affair led to a severe rift between loyal follower. Obedience to de facto law. I thought we learned these lessons after global. With the former being a mostly private affair in modern society. But these don't really put strict limits.
Perhaps this is merely a personal reaction, but when I look at what is happening to our country, what I find most terrifying is not Curtis Le. May, with his cheerful suggestion that we bomb everybody back into the stone age, but rather the calm disquisitions of the political scientists on just how much force will be necessary to achieve our ends, or just what form of government will be acceptable to us in Vietnam. What I find terrifying is the detachment and equanimity with which we view and discuss an unbearable tragedy. We all know that if Russia or China were guilty of what we have done in Vietnam, we would be exploding with moral indignation at these monstrous crimes. What can one say about a country where such an idea can even be considered? You have to weep for this country. If there will be a 'revolution' in America today, it will no doubt be a move towards some variety of fascism.
We must guard against the kind of revolutionary rhetoric that would have had Karl Marx burn down the British Museum because it was merely part of a repressive society. It would be criminal to overlook the serious flaws and inadequacies in our institutions, or to fail to utilize the substantial degree of freedom that most of us enjoy, within the framework of these flawed institutions, to modify them or even replace them by a better social order. One who pays some attention to history will not be surprised if those who cry most loudly that we must smash and destroy are later found among the administrators of some new system of repression. The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat. It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist and to restrain the violence of the state.
Those who choose to disregard this responsibility can justly be accused of complicity in war crimes, which is itself designated as . Simon and Schuster, 1. Reprehensible, to be sure, but hardly the main point. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control.
Adolf Hitler (German: .
Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level - - there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.. And, in particular, that's true of freedom. Freedom is one of the commodities that is for sale, and if you are affluent, you can have a lot of it. It shows up in all sorts of ways. It shows up if you get in trouble with the law, let's say, or in any aspect of life it shows up.
And for that reason it makes a lot of sense, if you accept capitalist system, to try to accumulate property, not just because you want material welfare, but because that guarantees your freedom, it makes it possible for you to amass that commodity. They can purchase that commodity and, therefore, they want those institutions to exist, like free press, and all that.
Until this is recognized, discussion of the Middle East crisis cannot even begin. In fact, I believe that this is probably the main function of the Cold War: it serves as a useful device for the managers of American society and their counterparts in the Soviet Union to control their own populations and their own respective imperial systems.
Roughly speaking, I think it's accurate to say that a corporate elite of managers and owners governs the economy and the political system as well, at least in very large measure. The people, so- called, do exercise an occasional choice among those who Marx once called . Not just the United States. For example, France is doing some really vicious things there, in fact they're just wiping out islands because they want them for nuclear tests. And when the socialist government in France is asked, ? Well, the answer to that is clear, after all they're just a bunch of little brown people or something. But you can't say that exactly, especially if you're a socialist, so something else is said.
In the post World War II period, we've frequently had to carry out defense against internal aggression, that is against Salvadorans in El Salvador, Greeks in Greece, against Filipinos in the Philippines, against South Vietnamese in South Vietnam, and many other places. And the concept of internal aggression has been repeatedly invoked in this connection, and quite appropriately. It's an interesting concept, it's one that George Orwell would certainly have admired, and it's elaborated in many ways in the internal documentary record. Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace, 1. Commonly rephrased as: . But the fact is that Orwell was a latecomer on the scene. As early as World War I, American historians offered themselves to President Woodrow Wilson to carry out a task they called .
In this instance, the U. S. This represents a version of Orwell's 1. Orwell was writing. Wendy Mc. Elroy, . Republished in: .
These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the propaganda system to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling or unwitting instruments. They rely very heavily on U. S. So they have developed a very sophisticated system of propaganda.
They don't call it propaganda. They call it hasbarah. It is the only country I know of in the world that refers to propaganda as explanation. The Ministry of Propaganda is the Ministry of Explanation.
The idea being that our position on everything is so obviously correct that if we only explain it to people, they will see that it is right. That's one of the reasons why there are so many intelligence failures. They just never get anything straight, for all kinds of reasons. Part of it is because of the information they get. The information they get comes from ideological fanatics, typically, who always misunderstand things in their own crazy way. If you look at an FBI file, say, about yourself, where you know what the facts are, you'll see that the information has some kind of relation to the facts, you can figure out what they're talking about, but by the time it works its way through the ideological fanaticism of the intelligence agencies, there's always weird distortion. Q& A with community activists, February 1.
During the 1. 96. The sophisticated understand that that's the crisis of democracy. That's pretty obvious. You can't have non- violent resistance against the Nazis in a concentration camp, to take an extreme case.. When we turn to the mind and its products, the situation is not qualitatively different from what we find in the case of the body. Jerry Fodor (1. 98. Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology.
Intrinsic (psychological) structure is rich . There appears to be no clear demarcation line between physical organs, perceptual and motor systems and cognitive faculties in the respects in question.
But, where the serious people are, the problem is that we have to maintain this disparity, and obviously it's gotta be maintained by force. So none of the idealistic slogans at home. So when you're setting up death squads in El Salvador under the Alliance for Progress, you're not hampered by these idealistic slogans.
That's for the masses, for us. Well, given this kind of thinking, it's not too surprising that President Kennedy should say, with regard to El Salvador after supporting a military coup there, that . Well, I don't know, so far there's no evidence that they are, but that's not really the interesting question.
The angry generation: Lack of parental discipline is blamed for aggressive and anti- social children. By. Laura Clark, Education Correspondent. Updated. 1. 1: 5. GMT, 2. 7 February 2. Parents who fail to discipline their offspring properly are creating a generation of angry children who lash out in the classroom, a study has found. Pupils are twice as likely to be aggressive and disruptive if they had parents who were violent, critical or inconsistent in what they allowed them to get away with at home, research suggests.
In contrast, children tended to be better behaved if their parents combined warmth with clear and consistent rules and boundaries. Aggression: Children whose parents are violent, critical or send out mixed signals on where boundaries lie are twice as likely to be aggressive or disruptive. Poor supervision of children’s activities and mothers suffering depression were also linked to bad behaviour. The researchers said they were unable to rule out the argument that .
But ministers hope that if the scheme proves successful they will eventually extend it across the country and make the classes available to all parents. The research team reported that mothers who were less educated and had lower incomes were more likely to resort to negative parenting. However they admitted the link was . This is a serious erosion of important family time.’.