Well, we don't take him serious inside linguistics.
(He had some good ideas back at the dawn of theoretical computer science. But those ideas were good for some math-ing, but have almost nothing to do with how humans use language.)
That’s like arguing that the state can’t be totalitarian because none of its departments or ministries care about everything. The FDA just cares about food and drugs, the Ministry of Culture just cares about culture, etc….
The executives at corporations seek to control their customers and suppliers from a commercial perspective as much as legally possible. Employees have no expectations of free speech or freedom from surveillance. You are expected to publicly venerate your employer. N.B. Government organizations or NGOs aren’t any better. This is about the nature of organizations and power not ownership structures.
To compare a corporation to Stalinist Russia is hyperbole. But to work in a corporation in a non-executive capacity is to get some sense of what a totalitarian state is like.
Many people tire of this and become freelancers/consultants - taking on financial risk for personal independence. No Voice so Exit.
IME most academics have a poor understanding of the phenomenology of organizational power.
I've yet to work for a company that expects you to venerate them in public. As a rank and file employee, just keeping your mouth shut is all that's usually required.
>They don’t care who their customers are. They don’t care about their customers’ philosophies. They don’t care how customers use their products. As long as customers pay up
Do you realize that all this stuff related to whether customer pays up? Like, vegans are probably not going to pay for meat. Corporations do not care about your philosophy terminally, but if philosophy is correlated with purchases, they are interested in keeping your philosophy in "maximum profit" range.
And corporations, obviously, care if your philosophy calls for their dismantling.
“but if philosophy is correlated with purchases, they are interested in keeping your philosophy in ‘maximum profit’ range.”
That strikes me as just a restatement of one of the reasons corporations exist: to serve a need/want and get compensated for it. Building the capacity to serve the need/want as broadly as possible (ie, incorporating as many philosophies as possible—think Instacart building its supplier base to allow delivery of kosher, vegan, paleo, keto, etc.). Is much more important than trying to care about which customer has what philosophy.
“And corporations, obviously, care if your philosophy calls for their dismantling.”
But not as a “paying customer.” One can be a socialist, calling for the state ownership of Apple or all tech companies, while still purchasing an iPhone or whatever. Apple, the corporate purveyor, won’t care about your philosophy personally. Instead, they will have an army of “influencers,” or belong to groups of influencers, designed and organized to combat that philosophy.
How has increasing Federal power gone regarding limiting the power of corporations? Has it made them powerless or massively increased their power and reduced their accountability.
Unfortunately, that's not always true since corporations got into woke virtue signalling... now some of them will yield to social media pileons from activists and ban or restrict customers based on ideological beliefs.
More and more often, "private" corporations (Facebook, Google, Amazon, banks) are pressured by government and non-government (Jews) forces to deplatform, delist, unbank, and otherwise discriminate against customers on ideological grounds.
It seems more government interference with more aspects of our lives might inch closer to “totalitarianism “ in principle than corporations do.
However, some corporations (the closer they get to monopoly position) might be more culpable of that than others. And I think that has to be balanced by government to restrain companies against anti-competitive practices when their “partialtarian” reach gets to a certain point.
You’d think a professor of linguistics wouldn’t be so hyperbolic. Why do we take Chomsky seriously outside of linguistics?
Well, we don't take him serious inside linguistics.
(He had some good ideas back at the dawn of theoretical computer science. But those ideas were good for some math-ing, but have almost nothing to do with how humans use language.)
Just asked that same question of a good friend. Why indeed.
Actually Chomskys idea makes corporations closer to totalitarianism by introducing regulatory capture…
Chomsky’s argument seems to be: “Corporations are kind of like totalitarianism, so let’s solve the problem by creating a real totalitarianism.”
Not convincing.
That’s like arguing that the state can’t be totalitarian because none of its departments or ministries care about everything. The FDA just cares about food and drugs, the Ministry of Culture just cares about culture, etc….
corporations have competition for what they "care" about, bureaucracies are inescapable monopolies
States have competition from other states. They’re just like corporations, only larger.
you can change jobs/where you shop without moving, big difference.
The executives at corporations seek to control their customers and suppliers from a commercial perspective as much as legally possible. Employees have no expectations of free speech or freedom from surveillance. You are expected to publicly venerate your employer. N.B. Government organizations or NGOs aren’t any better. This is about the nature of organizations and power not ownership structures.
To compare a corporation to Stalinist Russia is hyperbole. But to work in a corporation in a non-executive capacity is to get some sense of what a totalitarian state is like.
Many people tire of this and become freelancers/consultants - taking on financial risk for personal independence. No Voice so Exit.
IME most academics have a poor understanding of the phenomenology of organizational power.
I've yet to work for a company that expects you to venerate them in public. As a rank and file employee, just keeping your mouth shut is all that's usually required.
I have had employers mandate LinkedIn reposts and positive Glassdoor reviews.
Chomsky wrongly assumes public control is somehow more benign. Can anyone take one look at Congress and actually believe that?
Intellectuals like Chomsky build their entire political systems on utopian fantasies.
>They don’t care who their customers are. They don’t care about their customers’ philosophies. They don’t care how customers use their products. As long as customers pay up
Do you realize that all this stuff related to whether customer pays up? Like, vegans are probably not going to pay for meat. Corporations do not care about your philosophy terminally, but if philosophy is correlated with purchases, they are interested in keeping your philosophy in "maximum profit" range.
And corporations, obviously, care if your philosophy calls for their dismantling.
corporations won't raid your house for "wrongthink" tho
“but if philosophy is correlated with purchases, they are interested in keeping your philosophy in ‘maximum profit’ range.”
That strikes me as just a restatement of one of the reasons corporations exist: to serve a need/want and get compensated for it. Building the capacity to serve the need/want as broadly as possible (ie, incorporating as many philosophies as possible—think Instacart building its supplier base to allow delivery of kosher, vegan, paleo, keto, etc.). Is much more important than trying to care about which customer has what philosophy.
“And corporations, obviously, care if your philosophy calls for their dismantling.”
But not as a “paying customer.” One can be a socialist, calling for the state ownership of Apple or all tech companies, while still purchasing an iPhone or whatever. Apple, the corporate purveyor, won’t care about your philosophy personally. Instead, they will have an army of “influencers,” or belong to groups of influencers, designed and organized to combat that philosophy.
No meat, huh? Okay, buy our veggies.
You left out the ‘i’: ‘partialitarian’.
How has increasing Federal power gone regarding limiting the power of corporations? Has it made them powerless or massively increased their power and reduced their accountability.
Unfortunately, that's not always true since corporations got into woke virtue signalling... now some of them will yield to social media pileons from activists and ban or restrict customers based on ideological beliefs.
More and more often, "private" corporations (Facebook, Google, Amazon, banks) are pressured by government and non-government (Jews) forces to deplatform, delist, unbank, and otherwise discriminate against customers on ideological grounds.
Even ChatGPT.
It seems more government interference with more aspects of our lives might inch closer to “totalitarianism “ in principle than corporations do.
However, some corporations (the closer they get to monopoly position) might be more culpable of that than others. And I think that has to be balanced by government to restrain companies against anti-competitive practices when their “partialtarian” reach gets to a certain point.