I had almost forgotten about I had written a draft just consisting of the post title, but Chip reminded me of the Buckley vs Vidal video, which of course sparked a remembrance of the Buckley vs Chomsky video (both of which can be found in what I am proud to declare the largest gathering of Buckley obituaries), and then in turn Chomsky vs Foucault (part 2 here). That last one I found via OrgTheory and planned to write a post on but for some reason forgot.
As might be guessed, I lean toward Chomsky. I have a disdain for Frenchy post-modernist dreck. Chomsky at least theoretically embraces a decentralist anarchist (though anarcho-syndicalist) vision, though in the near term he has said he’d like to strengthen the federal government (what kind of anarchist says that?). For all his political radicalism Chomsky embraces old school Cartesianism and is firmly in the nature (contra nurture) camp when it comes to linguistics. Foucault in at least one way reminds me of Mencius Moldbug in that he is not focused on the State but has a much broader view of the architecture of our ruling institutions. As a Szaszian I am somewhat partial to his critique of our institutions dealing with mental illness (which are, as RadGeek points out, endowed with the coercive power of prisons).
Entitled to an Opinion 
June 1, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Chomsky seems to attract people, however wrongheaded, who actually want to change political reality and correct percieved wrongs. Foucault is for the “Ikea nihilists”, as one of my favorite electronic artists, Matthew Herbert, puts it.
June 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm
What about on the question of “justice,” discussed in part two? Do you tend closer to Chomsky’s view that the notion of justice is in some sense “real” inasmuch as it is rooted in our common nature (a view which is constantly being prodded and explored in Larry Arnhart’s still very active “Darwinian Conservatism” site), or do you think there’s something to Foucault’s structuralist approach, which sees notions of justice as arising from that deeper architecture?
As an aside, an interesting and refreshingly readable pop-Foucauldian is James Kincaid, whose book, “Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting,” I recommend.
June 1, 2008 at 4:29 pm
It’s been awhile since I watched the videos and right now Youtube is too slow for me to watch and refresh my memory. When I was young I thought “justice” was the accurate execution of the laws, whatever they may be. When I learned other people (the majority, apparently) did not hold such value-neutral definitions I abandoned the use of the word. I suspect that there are some common Darwinian desires reflected in our use of the term, but I wouldn’t say justice is “real” nor would I say our notions of it are simply manufactured by some nefarious outside force. It may be the result of something along the lines of promiscuous teleology.
June 1, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Wow, that was great, thanks! Here’s a transcript. I wouldn’t dismiss Foucault as Frenchy dreck — like science fiction, 90% of postmodern writing may be crap but you have to know where to find the good stuff, and Foucault is definitely worth reading. Watching that video I was reminded of one of the favorite books of my youth, Ursula LeGuin’s The Disposessed, which is a novel about an anarch-syndicalist society which faces the problems of institutions of power re-forming themselves. Most right-wing libertarians absolutely hate it however.
Also reminded me of a book on my to-read pile, Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds, which takes a vaguely Chomskyian view of moral cognition.
June 22, 2008 at 5:26 pm
institutions dealing with mental illness (which are, as RadGeek points out, endowed with the coercive power of prisons).
It was once far worse.
August 21, 2009 at 7:12 pm
[…] that spread them. He’s always been more the Foucault/Jeffrey Hart type while I’m more Chomsky/James Burnham on the malevolent Librul Media and its awesome powers, so I’m less interested […]