Interview With Ray Peat On Government, Libertarianism, And Social Class

[Blossom]

I thought he had his birthday in October? I know he shares the same birthday as @lisaferraro so perhaps she remembers.

 

[lollipop]

I thought he had his birthday in October? I know he shares the same birthday as @lisaferraro so perhaps she remembers.

True. Oct 12.

 

[keith]

If you Google around you will see that quite a few former intelligence officers have "outed" Chomsky as one of their own. Of course, whether they can be believed is another story but I am 100% with Peat on saying Chomsky's ideas on linguistics, grammar and some social policies serve the ruling class.

I don't disagree exactly, but think there is a little more to it. I don't think it is very likely Chomsky is a spook, and I do think he makes some excellent points, and he has been pretty consistent about condemning certain specific acts of state violence and coercion (overt and covert) and exposing the hypocracies of American politics over the years. I think it would be a mistake to discount Chomsky's contributions to political and social discourse over the past half century or so. I think politically, he and Peat seem to have a lot in common in terms of the views they profess, but the impression I've gotten is that Chomsky, despite his lip service to anti-authoritarianism, is rather authoritarian in his actions (Ray points to this here: Academic authoritarians, language, metaphor, animals, and science, mostly related to his work in linguistics, but I noticed the same thing I watching his political interviews before I ever read Peat. Politics is much more in my area of knowledge than linguistics is. I noticed in interviews, etc, whenever someone really challenges his views in an unanticipated way, he quickly gets upset and dismissive; I'm sure some of this spills over into his theories). I do think Ray is more authentic, more honest, more open minded, and has a more wholistic view of political/social life than does Chomsky. I wish he wrote more on politics. I could read/listen to him all day on this stuff. This is good stuff. I just wanted to add a brief defense of Chomsky, because, although far from perfect, he has done a lot to expose political myths and challenge the status quo. I completely understand the criticisms, though, and they aren't unfounded.

 

[goodandevil]

I love when he disses Chomsky. So many people, myself included at one point, think he is the savior of the common man. IMHO he is just another of the ruling classes' pied pipers, whose whole purpose is to keep his fans in a state of inaction and fascination.

I'm with u, **** chomsky

 

[Makrosky]

I don't disagree exactly, but think there is a little more to it. I don't think it is very likely Chomsky is a spook, and I do think he makes some excellent points, and he has been pretty consistent about condemning certain specific acts of state violence and coercion (overt and covert) and exposing the hypocracies of American politics over the years. I think it would be a mistake to discount Chomsky's contributions to political and social discourse over the past half century or so. I think politically, he and Peat seem to have a lot in common in terms of the views they profess, but the impression I've gotten is that Chomsky, despite his lip service to anti-authoritarianism, is rather authoritarian in his actions (Ray points to this here: Academic authoritarians, language, metaphor, animals, and science, mostly related to his work in linguistics, but I noticed the same thing I watching his political interviews before I ever read Peat. Politics is much more in my area of knowledge than linguistics is. I noticed in interviews, etc, whenever someone really challenges his views in an unanticipated way, he quickly gets upset and dismissive; I'm sure some of this spills over into his theories). I do think Ray is more authentic, more honest, more open minded, and has a more wholistic view of political/social life than does Chomsky. I wish he wrote more on politics. I could read/listen to him all day on this stuff. This is good stuff. I just wanted to add a brief defense of Chomsky, because, although far from perfect, he has done a lot to expose political myths and challenge the status quo. I completely understand the criticisms, though, and they aren't unfounded.

I think exactly the same about Chomsky's political activism. I think he is very critical with USA establishment and foreing policies, so yes, I really doubt he's a CIA agent or other conspiranoiac theories. About the linguistics part... I don't know. Don't know much about linguistics really. So +1 for keith.

 

[Queequeg]

I really doubt he's a CIA agent or other conspiranoiac theories.

+1 for the term conspiranoiac

 

[zztr]

Chomsky's contributions to political and social discourse over the past half century or so.

His main thing as far as I can tell has been trying to strip Americans of any pride in their institutions and heritage as a people. "America" as a force for oppression and evil in history is almost his shtick.

 

[Simonsays]

Thanks for the link, this is an absolute gem.

I'm not surprised this thread is quiet considering all the politicos(identity politics) on here,the interview highlights even more some of the nonsense from "both sides" on this forum during the election and what still continues ,also highlights the redundant ideologues political fantasy's that get spewed on here attempting to sow Peat into their bias.

Quite, its deafening the silence on his views, except its now been detoured on criticising Chomsky,(approx 1% of interview) a fellow leftist.

So Rays a class war anarchist, a true libertarian, like i thought he was. Some posters on here must be weeping.

My God. Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Thoreau, Blake. Its endless.

He was also "under surveillance", im surprised he wasnt locked up for "Un American activities", no wonder he moved to Mexico.

RP: Powerful individuals and their corporations are simply aware that small streamlined governments are easier to control. The “small government advocates” want to privatize all the constructive functions — water, roads, schools, and medicine — and to limit government to taxing, policing, and war-making, but with the unstated function of defining property rights with a class bias. The power functions, taxing, policing, and war-making, can’t be privatized, because they have no constructive social function. The destructive powers of corporations were widely recognized 200 years ago, but skilled ideological construction has shifted the fear of bigness away from corporations, toward “government,” when government threatened to interfere with their power. Constructive social functions can be performed cooperatively, and borders or size limitations are probably irrelevant.

Ray nails the " big government " lie, used to distract people from "big corporations and powerful individuals" .

Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor.

Competition is the law of the jungle, but cooperation is the law of civilization

America is just the country that how all the written guarantees in the world for freedom are no protection against tyranny and oppression of the worst kind. There the politician has come to be looked upon as the very scum of society.

Peter Kropotkin

 

[keith]

His main thing as far as I can tell has been trying to strip Americans of any pride in their institutions and heritage as a people. "America" as a force for oppression and evil in history is almost his shtick.

I think he just tries to look at America and American institutions honestly and without pretense and prejudice, including discarding the belief that America is somehow exceptional, and not subject to the same scrutiny to which we hold others. When he says things like America is the leading sponsor of world terrorism, it isn't controversial in most of the world, particularly the countries where we blow up hospitals and target wedding parties with drones. I think he is just encouraging us to do things we can be proud of, instead of being proud of whatever we do without considering whether it is really good or bad. Pride should be earned.

 

[zztr]

Ray nails the " big government " lie, used to distract people from "big corporations and powerful individuals" .

I don't get this mentality. Big companies are mostly annoying to the extent they tend to wind up controlling the government. Governments always and everywhere throughout history are scary and annoying.

I don't think anyone is "distracted" from corporate power. They're annoyed about Corporatism: the merger of state and corporate power as outlined by Mussolini. At this point most of the Fortune 100 amount to branches of the United States Federal Government.

Do you think increasing the size and scope of the government could some how fix this mess? This is nonsensical to me. It's as if we were in battle taking heavy casualties under howitzer fire from an enemy, and the thing you want to strategize on is the food supply of the enemy artillery operators. No, dummy, we have to take out the artillery piece right now.

 

[keith]

Quite, its deafening the silence on his views, except its now been detoured on criticising Chomsky,(approx 1% of interview) a fellow leftist.

So Rays a class war anarchist, a true libertarian, like i thought he was. Some posters on here must be weeping.

My God. Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Thoreau, Blake. Its endless.

He was also "under surveillance", im surprised he wasnt locked up for "Un American activities", no wonder he moved to Mexico.

RP: Powerful individuals and their corporations are simply aware that small streamlined governments are easier to control. The “small government advocates” want to privatize all the constructive functions — water, roads, schools, and medicine — and to limit government to taxing, policing, and war-making, but with the unstated function of defining property rights with a class bias. The power functions, taxing, policing, and war-making, can’t be privatized, because they have no constructive social function. The destructive powers of corporations were widely recognized 200 years ago, but skilled ideological construction has shifted the fear of bigness away from corporations, toward “government,” when government threatened to interfere with their power. Constructive social functions can be performed cooperatively, and borders or size limitations are probably irrelevant.

Ray nails the " big government " lie, used to distract people from "big corporations and powerful individuals" .

Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor.

Competition is the law of the jungle, but cooperation is the law of civilization

America is just the country that how all the written guarantees in the world for freedom are no protection against tyranny and oppression of the worst kind. There the politician has come to be looked upon as the very scum of society.

Peter Kropotkin

Kropotkin

 

[zztr]

considering all the politicos(identity politics) on here

All politics is "identity politics." Just call it politics.

 

[meatbag]

.

 

[Queequeg]

Quite, its deafening the silence on his views, except its now been detoured on criticising Chomsky,(approx 1% of interview) a fellow leftist.
So Rays a class war anarchist, a true libertarian, like i thought he was. Some posters on here must be weeping.

I am not sure why you quoted Drareg, as you just did exactly what he was making fun of:)

the interview ... highlights the redundant ideologues political fantasy's that get spewed on here attempting to sow Peat into their bias.

At the risk of also reading my own politics into his, I'll play along.
I agree with you that Ray is a class warrior but I don't think he qualifies as an Anarchist or a "true Libertarian". In fact I think those terms are mutually exclusive.

From my reading it seems he wants a different type of government that supports all classes and is not calling for Anarchy. He also calls limited Government a trick of the corporations.

RP: If government could be separated from the interests of the propertied class, and could grant primacy to the living people, it would no longer “govern” in the sense that we have known.

He then specifically refutes the "true Libertarian" doctrine:

RP "The meaning of the word “liberty” has been expanded since the 18th century, and many “libertarians” see something in the founders of the republic that wasn’t there. Following Locke, most of them believed that the chief purpose of the government was the preservation of property; they were the propertied class.

I would argue that Ray's politics supersede any of today's ideologies. I think he realizes that they are all meaningless constructs, much like gender politics. Just because he mentions some influential authors doesn't mean he subscribes to everything they had to say.

Both Kropotkin and Tolstoy were part of the nobility, the original "Right" from the French Revolution. Whose real interests do you think they were promoting? I would go out on a limb and say that they were about as sincere in their politics as Chomsky is in his.

RP: Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion.

As I said, I agree with you in saying that he is a class warrior. Class struggle has always been the real dividing line in politics.

RP:If class becomes a continuing part of political discussion, it might lead toward a restoration of democracy.

so to me he looks like a small d democrat but who really knows but him.

 

[AJC]

@Queequeg , @Simonsays

what does a "class warrior" mean to you?

 

[keith]

I am not sure why you quoted Drareg, as you just did exactly what he was making fun of:)

At the risk of also reading my own politics into his, I'll play along.
I agree with you that Ray is a class warrior but I don't think he qualifies as an Anarchist or a "true Libertarian". In fact I think those terms are mutually exclusive.

From my reading it seems he wants a different type of government that supports all classes and is not calling for Anarchy. He also calls limited Government a trick of the corporations.


He then specifically refutes the "true Libertarian" doctrine:

I would argue that Ray's politics supersede any of today's ideologies. I think he realizes that they are all meaningless constructs, much like gender politics. Just because he mentions some influential authors doesn't mean he subscribes to everything they had to say.

Both Kropotkin and Tolstoy were part of the nobility, the original "Right" from the French Revolution. Whose real interests do you think they were promoting? I would go out on a limb and say that they were about as sincere in their politics as Chomsky is in his.

As I said, I agree with you in saying that he is a class warrior. Class struggle has always been the real dividing line in politics.

so to me he looks like a small d democrat.

Just for context, libertarianism and anarchism were once basically synonymous terms, and I understand that in some parts of Europe (maybe all), the terms are still used interchangeably. In the U.S. libertarianism is now basically synonymous with minarchism. Only point being that one could describe anarchism as "true libertarianism" and not be wrong depending on context, but I would agree that what is commonly known as libertarianism, at least in the States, is incompatible with anarchism.

I don't know enough about Tolstoy to say, but as for Kropotkin, he was a true revolutionary. He spent much of his life in prison and exile for his ideas. Although he came from nobility and above average wealth, I don't think it is fair to paint him as a bourgeois armchair philosopher with ulterior motives.

 

[Queequeg]

@Queequeg , @Simonsays
what does a "class warrior" mean to you?

If you remove the Che Guevara overtones of violent revolution, I would define it as someone who is acting on the belief that the power struggle in any society, is and always has been, based on class lines.

 

[Queequeg]

Just for context, libertarianism and anarchism were once basically synonymous terms, and I understand that in some parts of Europe (maybe all), the terms are still used interchangeably. In the U.S. libertarianism is now basically synonymous with minarchism. Only point being that one could describe anarchism as "true libertarianism" and not be wrong depending on context, but I would agree that what is commonly known as libertarianism, at least in the States, is incompatible with anarchism.

I don't know enough about Tolstoy to say, but as for Kropotkin, he was a true revolutionary. He spent much of his life in prison and exile for his ideas. Although he came from nobility and above average wealth, I don't think it is fair to paint him as a bourgeois armchair philosopher with ulterior motives.

I think one problem with all of these terms, and RP points this out in the interview, is that their original meanings have been changed so it is difficult to really nail down any of these concepts. Also there have been so many varieties added to each category that any one subset of libertarianism could be very similar to a subset of anarchism.

But IMO the original meaning of Anarchy is that of no ruler or no government; only voluntary associations amongst individuals without the coercive force of Government. To me Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism is the establishment of a representative government as a force to protect the rights of property and individual freedoms. So though I see some overlap, I still don’t think they are compatible in their original sense.

It is very possible that Kropotkin was a true believer. The fact that he wasn't happy with the outcome of the revolution makes me think he just didn’t know he was being used. That wouldn't have been unique in his time or in ours.

 

[< Rain]

"The mystiques of schooling, medicine, and legal services are part of the system of control and exploitation that can be painlessly dissolved."

"The culture has been engineered to create unconsciousness of class, so that democratic voting would reliably support ruling class policies. I think an insight such as Thoreau’s, that the natural person is impaired by the culture, is necessary if the culture is to be revised intelligently and quickly enough."

Perfectly Stated. This is in alignment with the investigative work by teacher John Taylor Gatto; showing how the Prussian education system was imported into the U.S. to create 'workers' and not 'thinkers'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8

 

[DaveFoster]

Academics don't like Chomsky. He's too anarchist for them.