So is there any substance to people like Chomsky and Zizek...

Chomsky's stated theory is that public opinion is a power that can be used to direct the actions of rulers. His linguistics are weird, he thinks that words are genetically determined: scienceandrevolution.org/blog/2018/10/15/chomsky-says-that-concepts-such-as-book-and-carburetor-are-innate.

Zizek's stated theory is that we should struggle ideologically to emasculate (cut off the balls) of the rulers and then establish global bureaucratic socialism.

Both of these have argued that Stalin was too brutal, while also arguing for certain US Military interventions, You know those are renowned for their gentle touch.

To be fair they mostly are still, anti-imperialist and peddle generic anti-capitalist thought.

loving every laugh

Chomsky is at least a valid scientist and intellectual who put a lot of research and analysis into his work on media and foreign policy. Zizek is a deranged clown who has nothing of value to offer except social commentary which is almost always wrong and stupid

As members of the intelligentsia they inhabit privileged positions in the current order and it is therefore in their self-interest to perpetuate it. Neither have given me reason to believe that they are class-traitors, Chomsky is an obvious CIA controlled-opposition propaganda asset while Zizek once again showed his true colours in the debate when he talked about how oppressed the individual is in the brutal dictatorship of the DPRK instead for example talking about Saudi Arabia.

He’s inconsistent but he does denounce US imperialism much of the time. He has frequently denounced US regime change efforts in Latin America.

They will fit right in Zig Forums :^)

There is no substance to Zizek, but Chomsy is a walking encyclopedia of U.S. imperialism and as such a useful red piller for U.S. state patriots and zionist shills.

Zizek intrigues brainlets who then get into leftism.

Chomsky gives liberals autofellatio fodder and works for the US military.

Their ideas are kind of irrelevant. They're more like activists than thinkers per se.

two autistic old men who have become red liberals and fail to fight against postmodernism.

the left is doomed if these are their idols.

Attached: 20190424_140833.jpg (600x860, 563.26K)

Mao was right when he said too many books is harmful.

sounds like pure ideology tbh

Mao cared more about being pithy than making a good argument. Problem's not "too many books" but all theory and no action or IRL context.

he has an encyclopedic knowledge of us imperialism and declassified documents

Chomsky is a fucking red liberal you idiot.

Only liberals see them as leaders in left-wing thought though, problem is that there is much more radlibs obviously, i've barely met any actual communist that follows those guys.

Chomsky is fine for cataloguing US military/media misconduct and zizek is fine for cultural commentary. They're a lot of people's first exposure to something other than liberalism so they become overzealous and Dunning-Kruger about it. The leftists who are most against them are the usual twitter anarchists who are mad at chomsky for saying antifa is counterproductive and zizek for being skeptical about progressive pet causes like transgenderism, trump being literally the devil, etc.
Also props to chomsky for consistently calling out the sophistic obscurantism of contemporary philosophy.

/thread.
also an all-or-nothing approach to philosophy is brainlet tier.
every other thread this week has been trying to delegitimize zizek with (most) posters having 0 substance. There's obviously things to criticize, but posters are not bringing it to the table. See

Zizek and Chomsky gained prominence after the demoralization of the "radical" student movement of the 60's. This is why the most prominent feature of both Chomsky and Zizek is their distrust and disbelief in the revolutionary potential of the working class and international socialist revolution. Zizek and Chomsky both believe in reformism in their own ways, Chomsky calling for people to support Hillary and other Democrats and Zizek for his disastarous Liberal Democracy of Slovenia.

Chomsky and Zizek hold influence on middle class students which is why Zig Forums seems to love these figures.

i require a source

You require some motivation to look this up through the vast powers of the internet

As most people have pointed out, both are quite anti-communist with dubious takes on imperialism, but Chomsky is at least a proper researcher, while Žižek does his stream of consciousness bullshit without any sources.

Chris Knight's articles refute this entirely. Because Chomsky was publishing from a military-funded research team at MIT, all of his citations were "military secrets." This drove actual linguistics researchers insane. Chomsky was being widely promoted yet it was impossible to investigate any of his claims. The point of his research was to attack materialist philosophy.

Is chomsky an agent?

You fucking what?

I don't see the problem.

The struggle is always a material struggle not an ideological one. "Bureaucratic" socialism is anti-marxist and fundamentally devalues the working class. Only way to achieve socialism is to free the working class and give it a marxist education so that it can break all the chains imposed on it by the bourgeoisie.

"Bureaucratic" socalism is a theory first advanced by the renegades from the the SWP, Ernest Mandel and Pablo, who advanced the theory that the Soviet bureaucracy could reform itself into socialism, all it needed was pressure from within. That perspective utterly failed and was predicted to fail by Trotsky who wrote that either the USSR would have a workers revolution from within or would revert back to capitalism due to the bureaucracy's betrayals of the working class.

Chomsky's analysis of the mass media in Manufacturing Consent is brilliant and I would say an absolute must read for all leftists. It's also a good thing to get your friends and family to read in order to redpill them on US imperialism and capitalist regime-change propaganda. 90% of the time his line is resolutely anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist, and he is at least honest enough to talk about how ML's like the Viet Cong were popular with the people. I think it's astonishing how so many people here are so self-righteous that they refuse to take him seriously just because he many have said one or two bad things. Also I don't believe the stuff about him somehow being in cahoots with the CIA for a second, you watch literally any of the interviews he's given in the last few months and they're all about how we should free Julian Assange etc. Half of this board is utterly retarded and beyond any salvation.

Chomsky is dangerous because he mixes in some truths with outright lies, like his denounciation of the Russian Revolution and Marx. This leads would be revolutionaries into the camp of reaction and bourgeois politics which is why Chomsky has cyncially endorsed bourgeois politicans and played the lesser of two evils game for decades. Chomsky also came out in support of US intervention in Syria which isn't just "one or two bad things". We are at a time when all forms of opportunism must be fought against and reactionaries like Chomsky are not just wrong but a threat to the expansion of Marxist vanguards.

yes actually
radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_070.pdf
chrisknight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Knight-on-Chomsky-2010.pdf
scienceandrevolution.org/blog/2018/10/15/chomsky-says-that-concepts-such-as-book-and-carburetor-are-innate

Most of it was Edward Herman's work, who is a far more consistent political dissident.
"According to Chomsky, "most of the book" was Herman's work.[7] Herman describes a rough division of labor in preparing the book whereby he was responsible for the preface and chapters 1-4 while Chomsky was responsible for chapters 5-7.[8] According to Herman, the propaganda model described in the book was originally his idea, tracing it back to his 1981 book Corporate Control, Corporate Power.[9] The main elements of the propaganda model (though not so called at the time) were discussed briefly in volume 1 chapter 2 of Herman and Chomksy's 1979 book The Political Economy of Human Rights, where they argued, "Especially where the issues involve substantial U.S. economic and political interests and relationships with friendly or hostile states, the mass media usually function much in the manner of state propaganda agencies."[10]"

John Deutch - Chomsky's friend in the Pentagon and the CIA
continued:
scienceandrevolution.org/blog/2017/4/17/jfj2jfrzwl7ff5wt40kdkagvt8akda

Are there any left wing thinkers or speakers of the same caliber who don't disavow?

Parenti?