Top Intellectuals

[Cain]

But what did we expect the readers of Foreign Policy to vote? Daniel Pipes?!

Christ, how do you survive in the world. Does Greece have some sort of welfare program for the very, very dumb?

Have you ever read Foreign Policy? Do you have any idea who founded the journal?

 

[Cleopatra]

Christ, how do you survive in the world. Does Greece have some sort of welfare program for the very, very dumb?

Have you ever read Foreign Policy? Do you have any idea who founded the journal?

Cain I have no idea. Please do tell oh and yes! Please answer to my question.

Name ONE contribution of Noam Chomsky in the field of Political Sciences. ONE would be enough.

 

[Cleopatra]

First of all, he bashes the USA because the USA actually does bad things.

I agree with that. The Fool bashes USA for the same reason but this doesn't give him the title of the Public Intellectual!

Secondly, saying his articles bear resemblance to those sponsored by the Communist Party in Greece is just claiming guilt by association.

Actually, I was having the suspsicion that HE was the one who committed plagiarism.

Thirdly, atheism is pretty marginalized, so I don't really see how the fact that something might be marginalized to some extent can unequivocally be so determinative of whether we should take that something seriously or not.

Atheism and Theism are two concepts that are irrelevant with Politics. We have decided long ago, at least in this continent, that Religion has nothing to do with politics. So, serious Public Intelectuals don't muse about such things anymore. However, I didn't have his religious beliefs in my mind, since , as I have said, I consider them irrelevant. It's his political views that I consider marginal since they are nothing more than cheap rhetorics that one can find even in a Greek paper of the communist party. This was my point.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In other words, Chomsky told the literal truth in as a misleading, anti-American way possible. "Dispicable" is probably a better word than "idiot". The word idiot should be reserved for the people who still listen to him after knowing this.

What I find interesting is the relentlessness with which you have been pursuing the ad hominem half of this argument, which is reasonably well illustrated by the paragraph above. It's a relentlessness I have observed a few times before in anti-Chomsky punters.

You seem very much bent on finding a reason, from anywhere in Chomsky's published political writings, to discard the man's entire body of work. Even when it's pointed out to you that you mistook the context and intent of your chosen instance of ratbaggery, you take it in stride and cling to the conclusion that the chosen instance discredits everything else he has ever written.

Now I am open to correction on this point, but I suspect you do not apply the same rigorous standards to every other writer or political figure. You are free to point me to instances where you have declared conservative writers to be evil and despicable for writing something that could be interpreted as possibly giving too little weight to the US bombing of Cambodia, or the atrocities committed by the Contras, or the US support of the coup in Indonesia and so forth. That would show that you are consistent.

Arguably you would also be foolish of course, since the ad hominem argument is fallacious, but you would certainly be consistent.

 

[Cain]

Cain I have no idea. Please do tell oh and yes!

Samuel Huntington (he may have been a co-founder). If I recall correctly -- and I usually do -- Chomsky explicitly criticized FP's coverage of the World Social Forum not long ago.

Please answer to my question.

Name ONE contribution of Noam Chomsky in the field of Political Sciences. ONE would be enough.

Shall I suppose you could name ONE contribution from Christopher Hitchens? What are the contributions of the well-respected James Woolsey (a transcript of a Woolsey/Chomsky debate should be available online). What is Wolfowitz's contribution to political science (quick, what was his doctoral thesis on)? Chomsky's work is a historical case study of US foreign policy and media management. His object purpose is identifying U.S. hypocrisy -- which apparently enrages a number of people. See for instance the above ad hominems that misconstrue Chomsky's observations as a pledge of moral support to Pol Pot. Insightful stuff. Moreover, Chomsky trashes political "science" whenever given the opportunity. Are you looking for a contribution like Clash of Civilizations, or more explicitly racist tracts?

Chomsky's political writings have an explicitly political purpose. He's not writing to please academics, not writing for the sake of getting published, and not writing to appear in top journals. This has never been his intention. He's very much "qualified" to comment on international affairs.

 

[Orwell]

One important contribution by Chomsky to politics: he has consistently and coherently de-constructed the very incestuous relation that exists between the mass media (in particular the US mass media) and government and corporations. He might not have been the first to point this out, but he was the one who made it noticeable.

I think that his training as a linguist allowed him to see pretty clearly how language and images were utilised for propaganda in the US and other western countries. It is unfortunate, however, that he sometimes looses a lot of his objectivity by mixing in all kinds of personal politics with his analyses. But still, I think that what he has to say, his deconstruction of US propaganda, in particular, is important and often interesting.

 

[Cleopatra]

Samuel Huntington (he may have been a co-founder). If I recall correctly -- and I usually do -- Chomsky explicitly criticized FP's coverage of the World Social Forum not long ago.

Cain, I am a regular reader of Foreign Politics and I wasn't amazed that Chomsky was pointed as a leading figure of Public Intellectual by its readers. I wasn't impressed in the slightest either when "anti-imprerialists" ( sic) all around the world partied about an internet poll.

Shall I suppose you could name ONE contribution from Christopher Hitchens? What are the contributions of the well-respected James Woolsey (a transcript of a Woolsey/Chomsky debate should be available online). What is Wolfowitz's contribution to political science (quick, what was his doctoral thesis on)?

I could reply that this is a strawman but I wish the ball to keep rolling. I agree with you, that's why I didn't claim that any of this gentlemen contributed something in Political Sciences. My idea of contribution in the field of political ideas is personified by the work of Francis Fukuyama for example. Please note that I am not saying that I agree with him, all I am saying is that he brought something new in the discussion.

Chomsky's work is a historical case study of US foreign policy and media management. His object purpose is identifying U.S. hypocrisy -- which apparently enrages a number of people. See for instance the above ad hominems that misconstrue Chomsky's observations as a pledge of moral support to Pol Pot. Insightful stuff. Moreover, Chomsky trashes political "science" whenever given the opportunity. Are you looking for a contribution like Clash of Civilizations, or more explicitly racist tracts?

Criticism is usuful but in political sciences criticism doesn't constitute an idea. A contribution is the step after criticism.

Chomsky's political writings have an explicitly political purpose. He's not writing to please academics, not writing for the sake of getting published, and not writing to appear in top journals. This has never been his intention. He's very much "qualified" to comment on international affairs.

And yet this is all that he has achieved. To please some academics,some journalists,a specific audience but he has failed to put the majority into thoughs and let a debate on something new begin.

Chomsky's contribution in linguistics is immense but I am afraid that he will be remembered as a marginal political commentator and this is because the Left who lacks amazingly in original thinkers in modern times,is hooked desperately by his anti-USA criticism.

Talking against USA foreign politics is political talk but it's not political thinking with the classical definition of the word.

 

[Orwell]

Funny, I've always considered Francis Fukuyama to be a "woo" thinker, and I take him much less seriously than I do Chomsky... And I often don't take Chomsky seriously. Different strokes for different folks, eh?

 

[Cain]

Cain, I am a regular reader of Foreign Politics

Amusing. You mean to say you are a regular reader of Foreign Policy.

and I wasn't amazed that Chomsky was pointed as a leading figure of Public Intellectual by its readers. I wasn't impressed in the slightest either when "anti-imprerialists" ( sic) all around the world partied about an internet poll.

Here's the thing: it's not as though this poll was confined to readers of FP.

I could reply that this is a strawman but I wish the ball to keep rolling. I agree with you, that's why I didn't claim that any of this gentlemen contributed something in Political Sciences. My idea of contribution in the field of political ideas is personified by the work of Francis Fukuyama for example. Please note that I am not saying that I agree with him, all I am saying is that he brought something new in the discussion.

How could you reply that my questioning of other individuals' "credentials" to be on the top pubic intellectuals list is a straw man? You can't. Your choice of Francis Fukuyama is a bizarre. I think the guy is a hack, and his cutting edge ideas go back to Hegel. I did enjoy the recent writeup of him and his break with neoconservativism in the _Prospect_.

Criticism is usuful but in political sciences criticism doesn't constitute an idea. A contribution is the step after criticism.


And yet this is all that he has achieved. To please some academics,some journalists,a specific audience but he has failed to put the majority into thoughs and let a debate on something new begin.

Well, that's just not true.

Chomsky's contribution in linguistics is immense but I am afraid that he will be remembered as a marginal political commentator and this is because the Left who lacks amazingly in original thinkers in modern times,is hooked desperately by his anti-USA criticism.

Talking against USA foreign politics is political talk but it's not political thinking with the classical definition of the word.

Alan Sokal, the dude who perpetrated the famous "Sokal Hoax" that most of us on this board loved and appreciated ("Transgressing the boundaries...") -- I recall him mentioning his "comrade" Chomsky in a speech. Sokal discussed how when Chomsky gave lectures to academics that incorporated math he would caution that he had no formal training. The response on the part matematicians was to listen to what he said and then decide for himself. Political "scientists" are less apt to do the same; instead they want to see "degrees", where you've published, what's your esteem in the field. The crucial difference is that in a "real" subject (as I think one of them put it) people are intellectually secure enough to check things out for themselves. Others, and Sokal was comparing the tendencies of some political "scienitsts" to postmodernists, is to look at degrees and bow before authority (a sign of intellectual weakness). And we see that here with your ad hominems against Chomsky and fans of his work.

 

[Mycroft]

...Now I am open to correction on this point, but I suspect you do not apply the same rigorous standards to every other writer or political figure. You are free to point me to instances where you have declared conservative writers to be evil and despicable for writing something that could be interpreted as possibly giving too little weight to the US bombing of Cambodia, or the atrocities committed by the Contras, or the US support of the coup in Indonesia and so forth. That would show that you are consistent...

I don't see CBL4 as being conservative at all. If anything, I'd call him centrist with liberal tendencies.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't see CBL4 as being conservative at all. If anything, I'd call him centrist with liberal tendencies.

What is called "centrist" in the USA is called extreme right wing everywhere else. From the Aussie point of view, you have a two party system with one extreme right wing party and one lunatic fringe right wing party.

It's all relative. From the US perspective I'm on the lunatic fringe, being left-wing for an Aussie.

 

[Mycroft]

What is called "centrist" in the USA is called extreme right wing everywhere else. From the Aussie point of view, you have a two party system with one extreme right wing party and one lunatic fringe right wing party.

It's all relative. From the US perspective I'm on the lunatic fringe, being left-wing for an Aussie.

Interesting.

So where does Noam Chomsky fall on your scale?

 

[Beerina]

I don't think it's a moral issue. Everyone wants the system that has the potential of helping everyone the most.

Well, I suppose. But that is an extremely loaded statement open to massive abuse by the power hungry leading the hoi polloi on cruscades.

But we'll accept it for the case of argument.

People on the left think that wealth redistribution will achieve this, and people on the right think nonintervention is the best way to achieve this. A better analogy would be this: "We all have decided that we like red cars. What's the best way to make and apply the paint?" I tend to think that this grossly exaggerated picture of moral relativism inherent in the human condition is really nothing more than a myth originating in the apprehensive minds of people afraid to give up their religion for fear that they cannot live without its guidance.

Many people believe wildly different things in religion, and that each idea is the "best one" to believe in as it is the "best for everybody".

What is the peaceful solution we have? To let everybody be free to believe and behave as they want in religion.

The human race needs to learn the same thing for economics. You do realize economics has taken over from religion as the new quasi-religion the power hungry use to lead people on cruscades, eh?

Mmmmmaybe the best thing is, like with religion, to let people...be free? Why should I have to change religions because King Henry VIII or whoever needs a divorce? Why should I have to join the government's health care system because Hillary needs to be elected?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Kevin Lowe
Now I am open to correction on this point, but I suspect you do not apply the same rigorous standards to every other writer or political figure. You are free to point me to instances where you have declared conservative writers to be evil and despicable for writing something that could be interpreted as possibly giving too little weight to the US bombing of Cambodia, or the atrocities committed by the Contras, or the US support of the coup in Indonesia and so forth. That would show that you are consistent.

It is interesting that because I detest one extreme leftist that I am branded a conservative. I have called Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld minor war criminals for their stands on torture. I am sure that I have ridiculed various conservative columnist but I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

I am libertarian or, if you are in Europe, a liberal. I despise tyrannies of the left and the right. I despise leftist or rightest apologists for tyrants as well.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
If you're going to keep attacking him using straw men, then I don't know how to convince you. He never meant to compare Hekmatyar and Pol Pot directly. He took two instances of genocide, one instance being perpetrated by Hekmatyar and the other by Pol Pot, and used them to demonstrate that America supports genocide when it furthers its interests but opposes it when it doesn't.

If you think that 30,000 people dying in a war is genocide, then I guess we will have to disagree. I find 30,000 abhorent but, unfortunately, it happens way too often during wars. Fortunately, examples of killing a million people during peacetime are much rarer.

Comparing a petty warlord (by historical standards) to one of the 5 worst murderers ever is simply absurd. 2 million dead ranks just behind Hitler, Stalin and Mao. 30,000 dead in a civil war barely merits a footnote in history.

You, Orwell and Chomsky do not appear to understand that there is a huge difference between 30,000 and 2 million. Here a way that might help. What would you do if you one $30,000 in a lottery? What would you do if you won $2,000,000 in a lottery. One would help probably get Orwell off welfare. The other would let him retire.

CBL

 

[Orwell]

God damn it, CBL!

How many times do I have to repeat it? Chomsky is not comparing Hekmatyar to Pol Pot! He is comparing what the media said about Hekmatyar vs. what the media said about Pol Pot at the time of the events. Remember, the evacuation of Phnom Pen was before the killing fields. The media coverage of the Phnom Pen evacuation didn't take into account how nutty Pol Pot was simply because the things that Pol Pot did that established him as one of the XX century's most disturbing figures hadn't happened yet. I know perfectly well the difference between 30 000 dead and 2 million dead. And by the way, about the number of people killed in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge: the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project estimates 1.7 million dead; Amnesty International estimated 1.4 million; and the United States Department of State, 1.2 million.

If you are unable (or unwilling) to discuss the subject in a civilised manner (i.e. without turning personal), I suggest you move on to other things.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Interesting.

So where does Noam Chomsky fall on your scale?

It's hard to say because I have no idea of his opinion on things like social security, education and whatnot.

Purely on foreign policy grounds he would be left wing in Australia since he's trenchantly opposed to military adventures and in favour of aid to the Third World.

His opinions on the US government, the US governing elite and the US media are radical by existing standards, although I think he defends them reasonably well without indulging in any more cherry-picking than anybody else. My own feeling is that he's considered a radical solely because he says subversive things about the current superpower. I think that a person who said similar things about the British Empire would be seen as nothing more than a mildly cynical historian, and I imagine in fifty or one hundred years time Chomsky's views about current affairs will be similarly unexiting.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is interesting that because I detest one extreme leftist that I am branded a conservative. I have called Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld minor war criminals for their stands on torture. I am sure that I have ridiculed various conservative columnist but I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

I am libertarian or, if you are in Europe, a liberal. I despise tyrannies of the left and the right. I despise leftist or rightest apologists for tyrants as well.

I think we have further terminological problems here.

If you're a Shanek-style libertarian, you aren't a liberal in our sense. Your'e a left-wing extremist on personal liberty issues and a complete, howling, right-wing lunatic on social services and taxation.

That said, the accusation of inconsistency stands unless you routinely dismiss other writers' entire bodies of work on the basis of single paragraphs that could, if you bend over backwards and squint, seem to give insufficient weight to any given atrocity.

 

[Batman Jr.]

If you think that 30,000 people dying in a war is genocide, then I guess we will have to disagree. I find 30,000 abhorent but, unfortunately, it happens way too often during wars. Fortunately, examples of killing a million people during peacetime are much rarer.

Comparing a petty warlord (by historical standards) to one of the 5 worst murderers ever is simply absurd. 2 million dead ranks just behind Hitler, Stalin and Mao. 30,000 dead in a civil war barely merits a footnote in history.

You, Orwell and Chomsky do not appear to understand that there is a huge difference between 30,000 and 2 million. Here a way that might help. What would you do if you one $30,000 in a lottery? What would you do if you won $2,000,000 in a lottery. One would help probably get Orwell off welfare. The other would let him retire.

CBL

This is the same straw man. Chomsky was comparing the Phnom Penh incident with the Kabul incident (the death toll is 50,000, not 30,000), not Hekmatyar and Pol Pot. He's concerned that atrocities committed by people in cahoots with the US are given less weight than atrocities committed by others.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Well, I suppose. But that is an extremely loaded statement open to massive abuse by the power hungry leading the hoi polloi on cruscades.

But we'll accept it for the case of argument.

I don't see how it's loaded. I'm just outlining one of the central pillars of human morality.

Many people believe wildly different things in religion, and that each idea is the "best one" to believe in as it is the "best for everybody".

What is the peaceful solution we have? To let everybody be free to believe and behave as they want in religion.

The human race needs to learn the same thing for economics. You do realize economics has taken over from religion as the new quasi-religion the power hungry use to lead people on cruscades, eh?

Mmmmmaybe the best thing is, like with religion, to let people...be free? Why should I have to change religions because King Henry VIII or whoever needs a divorce? Why should I have to join the government's health care system because Hillary needs to be elected?

And why should someone else be subjected to the pure market because your candidate wants to get elected? Pure-market economics is junk science. Just because someone is operating in the market doesn't mean they're "free." I'd like you to go and meet with some of the people who were stuck in Katrina's wake and try to explain to them how they're so "free" despite the fact that they didn't have the "freedom" enough to get transportation out of New Orleans. That's your problem. You commit the definitional fallacy by equating the "market" with "freedom." In reality, the market can sometimes be just as totalitarian as a government mandate. It's just harder to realize because the totalitarianism is implicit.