Noam on stuff

[Severian]

You're right about exactly one thing.

I didn't say the situation in the world is simple, or that the relation between workers and capital is simple. I said that Chomsky's political views are simple.

This is the one thing you're right about.

It's a rather simple worldview: capitalism bad, USA bad, anybody who opposes either, good.

Hardly. You're constructing a straw man. Chomsky does not in fact endorse all adversaries of the U.S. He can be pretty scathing about some.

but there is about as much chance of him deciding the USA did anything right as there is of, say, Michael Behe (of "intelligent design" notoriety) deciding there is no God.

In fact, Chomsky has endorsed some U.S. military interventions: the invasion of Haiti during the Clinton administration, for example.

He's got a simple but useless criterion for these things: is an intervention likely to do more good than harm? Apparently he thought the Haiti intervention fit that. Given events since, that's debatable.

what drives Chomsky is an attempt to find something--anything--that Marxism got right about capitalism,

Chomsky's not a Marxist. He has - a much simpler worldview. (He sometimes describes himself as an anarchist, though this doesn't necessarily have much to do with other self-described anarchists.) If you think Marxism is simple - you know even less about it than you do about Chomsky.

You were right at the start: Chomsky is simple. He's good at one thing: demonstrating that the U.S. political establishment - in all its factions - is just like most regimes. It's concerned with power and interests, not any of its noble-sounding self-justifications. He's good at stripping away those justifications.

As far as what to do about it, or even an in-depth understanding of what those interests are - he's not really much use.

 

[Chaos]

*snip* If you think Marxism is simple - you know even less about it than you do about Chomsky.

*snip*

I don´t know Chomsky, but about Marxism you´re spot-on.

The thing about Marxism is, it was intended to describe the 1840´s, not the 2000´s. The purely economic part of Marx´s analyses is still considered pretty good by economists (that is, even the capitalist ones); only his politics, and his predictions for the future were dead wrong.

Any incompatibility between Marxism and the present-day world is not Marx´s fault. The problem is with the clueless idiots who take his writings literal and apply them to the modern world, as written - pretty much like religious fundamentalists do. In fact, if you do the same to, say, Adam Smith or David Ricardo, that will blow up into your face almost as badly as with Marx.

 

[Merko]

He is arbitrarily comparing one election in Latin America and one election in the US and making general observations from them.

No, you are the one turning it into a general observation.

Have you read his books and determined whether they are the product of historical research?

I've read a couple of them, and they were full of interesting research. But obviously you don't like these facts because they go against your world-view, so you disqualify them.

What? When did America threaten to kill Morales's dog or wife?

You told me the US did not oppose Morales. I showed links about how official US spokesmen threatened the Bolivian electorate not to elect Morales. You then asked me if these threats have been put into action. I replied that the threats themselves are sufficient proof of the opposition in question. The ridiculous reply above is a terrible attempt to get away from the fact that you were completely wrong, and I proved it.

If someone pursues a program and is then threatened, the threat cannot cause the program! It's basic temproral physics. Iran begins pursuing a program and izs then threatened. Now Chomsky says the threats caused the program to exist in the first place!

First of all, we do not know if Iran have a nuclear weapons programme. Some people suspect they do. Second, no, your logic is completely flawed. Even if Iran have a nuclear weapons project, even if they have been working on it for 2000 years, the completion of said project is dependent on what reasons they have today for completing it.

You don't believe Iran has political ambitions in the area?

Yes I do. Iran having nukes would however serve their ambitions in this area in exactly one way: it would act as a credible deterrent against attacks from other states, in practice US and Israel.

Are you insane? North Korea's nuclear developments have been going on since the 1990's! Iran has been pursuing nukes since the Ford Administration and continued to do so even after the US withdrew its support.

Sweden also had a nuclear weapons programme in the 1950's, what is your point? The NK decision to actually build the nukes - which comes with a significant cost - very much seems to be a direct reaction to the new US interventionism and changes in nuclear doctrine. The same thing may well happen in Iran.

No, you need to show that America is defined by the Bush adminsitration. The article I cited -- which was published before Chomsky's article on the subject -- clearly shows that many aspects of the US government seeks closer ties and is friendly to these regimes. You, like Chomsky, oversimplify the entire political map and ignore inconvenient complexities.

No I do not. Chavez is not anti-US either. You may have noted his oil subsidy campaign. However, Chomsky doesn't need to explain to his readers that when he's referring to US domination of Latin America, he's not referring to what John Doe working on a farm in Texas or a car factory in Detroit are doing.

 

[EGarrett]

Chomsky is simple. He's good at one thing: demonstrating that the U.S. political establishment - in all its factions - is just like most regimes. It's concerned with power and interests, not any of its noble-sounding self-justifications. He's good at stripping away those justifications.

It's ignorant generalizations like this that make Chomsky, and anti-Americans in general...like squawking parrots. Accomplishing nothing, convincing no one, and easily ignored.

I hope to God you weren't saying Chomsky was good at that because you agree with such an idiotic and nauseating statement.

 

[jimtron]

It's ignorant generalizations like this that make Chomsky, and anti-Americans in general...like squawking parrots. Accomplishing nothing, convincing no one, and easily ignored.

Could you provide an example of an ignorant generalization by Chomsky? He may be easy to ignore, but it's not true that he's convincing no one--he seems to be fairly influential. Which political analysts/pundits/critics do you like, that make significant accomplishments?

 

[EGarrett]

Could you provide an example of an ignorant generalization by Chomsky?

He refers to the United States as a "failed state"...which is a combination of ignorant generalization (there are a LOTof ways you can measure the success of a country, like population growth, economic growth, technology, GDP, system of values etc. and by most of these measures the US is the most NON-failed state that's ever existed)...and idiotic equivocation (futzing with the common meaning of an emotionally charged word so he can apply it to something else for his own means).

Which political analysts/pundits/critics do you like, that make significant accomplishments?

Ones whose opinion I can't get from opening a Patriot/Conservative or Liberal/Anti-American philosophy 101 book, and who also aren't in the business of trying to pull tricks with words or information to suit their means. The more willing a 'pundit' is to participate in unedited debates with people who disagree with him instead of putting out his ideas in one-sided books and television rants...the more I like them.

(in other words, I don't like most of them much at all)

 

[Chaos]

He refers to the United States as a "failed state"...which is a combination of ignorant generalization (there are a LOTof ways you can measure the success of a country, like population growth, economic growth, technology, GDP, system of values etc. and by most of these measures the US is the most NON-failed state that's ever existed)...and idiotic equivocation (futzing with the common meaning of an emotionally charged word so he can apply it to something else for his own means).

*snip*

Uh... population growth is a measure of a country´s success? Then Sub-Saharan Africa is a collection of GREAT countries, I guess, and NOT the sorriest example of corruption, poverty and economic failure you´ll ever see?
And, while we´re at it, how do you measure "system of values"? Do you just accept the values people claim to have? Or do you - by whatever mystical means - figure out the values they "really" have? The former makes the former Eastern Bloc countries at least as good as Western democracies, the latter amounts to reading tea leaves. You can only judge *actions*. And these actions paint a picture of, say, the United States of America, that is not nearly as flattering as you would like.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, some evidence that the USA is not really a failed state is that Chomsky finds it quite comfortable and good to live there himself, and isn't for a moment thinking of leaving.

That's the problem with Marxist, anti-American academics: how could you possibly take seriously rants about how evil and awful the USA is, from those who not only continue to live there, but also enjoy some of the best, most comfortable jobs the USA's system has to offer--and show no indication of ever quitting?

 

[Skeptic]

You were right at the start: Chomsky is simple. He's good at one thing: demonstrating that the U.S. political establishment - in all its factions - is just like most regimes. It's concerned with power and interests, not any of its noble-sounding self-justifications. He's good at stripping away those justifications.

Not really. He's good at the following "logic":

Politician X from the USA acted dishonorably in instance A
Politician Y from the USSR (or Nazi Germany, or Iran, or some other despicable regime) acted dishonorably in instance B
-------------------------
Therefore, there is no moral difference between the USA and (USSR, Nazi Germany, Iran, etc.)

This is like noting that you were once rude to your girlfriend on June 24, 2006, Ted Bundy was rude to his girlfriend on May 6, 1973, and "therefore" you and Ted Bundy both treated women the same, despite all your noble-sounding self-justifications.

Chomsky's idea of "argument" is to give, in mind-numbing detail, exactly how you behaved on June 24th, 2006, and how Bundy behaved on May 6, 1973, see no difference between the two, and conclude you are both morally equivalent.

Surely I don't need to explain why this isn't "stripping away noble-sounding self-justifications", but merely bad polemics.

 

[EGarrett]

Uh... population growth is a measure of a country´s success? Then Sub-Saharan Africa is a collection of GREAT countries, I guess, and NOT the sorriest example of corruption, poverty and economic failure you´ll ever see?
And, while we´re at it, how do you measure "system of values"? Do you just accept the values people claim to have? Or do you - by whatever mystical means - figure out the values they "really" have? The former makes the former Eastern Bloc countries at least as good as Western democracies, the latter amounts to reading tea leaves. You can only judge *actions*. And these actions paint a picture of, say, the United States of America, that is not nearly as flattering as you would like.

I meant population growth by immigration. Not to mention quality of life index, and rate of increase of quality of life index...

And you're more than welcome to view how the United States enforces its values compared to Sub-Saharan Africa, the USSR, China and any other country. The "secret police" in the United States is little more than liberal urban myths with very little actual evidence, whereas while the USSR and those other countries are/were around, they were VERY real. But this is of course obvious to anyone who can see beyond their blue-tinted shades. If you think these other countries "actions" in terms of how they enforce their values compare remotely to the United States, you're just full of crap. Seriously. Referring to the USA as a failed state is just sensationalist, exaggerated, equivocating garbage.

 

[Pardalis]

Well, some evidence that the USA is not really a failed state is that Chomsky finds it quite comfortable and good to live there himself, and isn't for a moment thinking of leaving.

That's the problem with Marxist, anti-American academics: how could you possibly take seriously rants about how evil and awful the USA is, from those who not only continue to live there, but also enjoy some of the best, most comfortable jobs the USA's system has to offer--and show no indication of ever quitting?

Opportunism.

They would be emprisoned or killed in a real dictatorial regime, and they know it.

 

[jimtron]

He refers to the United States as a "failed state"...

I'd like to see that in its original context--do you have a quote for that?

 

[robinson]

Try his book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. I think he mentioned it there. I believe he phrased it as, "America is a failed state!", or something like that.

 

[jimtron]

He refers to the United States as a "failed state"...which is a combination of ignorant generalization (there are a LOTof ways you can measure the success of a country, like population growth, economic growth, technology, GDP, system of values etc. and by most of these measures the US is the most NON-failed state that's ever existed)...and idiotic equivocation (futzing with the common meaning of an emotionally charged word so he can apply it to something else for his own means).

Here's Chomsky on the "Failed States" book. I disagree that his arguments for the U.S. becoming a failed state are ignorant generalizations or idiotic equivocations. Obviously he's not saying the U.S. is a failed country in terms of wealth or population or power.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The "system" is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the population from severe internal threats (like Haiti). Though the concept is recognized to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs, "frustratingly imprecise," some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.[/FONT]

IIRC, it was noted on this thread that Chomsky doesn't offer solutions:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." In addition to the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned: 1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; 2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; 3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; 4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; 5) keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter; 6) give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centers disagree; 7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending. For people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the overwhelming majority. They are in radical opposition to public policy. To be sure, we cannot be very confident about the state of public opinion on such matters because of another feature of the democratic deficit: the topics scarcely enter into public discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomized society, the public is therefore largely deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Another conservative suggestion is that facts, logic, and elementary moral principles should matter. Those who take the trouble to adhere to that suggestion will soon be led to abandon a good part of familiar doctrine, though it is surely much easier to repeat self-serving mantras. Such simple truths carry us some distance toward developing more specific and detailed answers. More important, they open the way to implement them, opportunities that are readily within our grasp if we can free ourselves from the shackles of doctrine and imposed illusion.[/FONT]

From a NYT review of the book:

Much of this will be familiar to veteran Chomsky readers, but in this book he supplies a new twist. What, he asks, is a failed state? It is one that fails "to provide security for the population, to guarantee rights at home or abroad, or to maintain functioning (not merely formal) democratic institutions." On that definition, Chomsky argues, the United States is the world's biggest failed state. This sounds like a hyperbolic charge, ludicrously overblown — but he goes far toward substantiating it. He is especially strong on pointing up Washington's woeful efforts to protect Americans from terror attacks, in one instance lavishing more resources on the imaginary threat from Cuba than on the all-too-real menace of Al Qaeda. (emphasis added)

 

[EGarrett]

Let's just count up the ignorant generalizations there...

Though the concept is recognized to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs, "frustratingly imprecise," some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction.

1. The United States is unable(What? compared to WHO? At the same time he says the military is too big.) or unwilling(excuse me??!!!) to protect its citizens from attack.

Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law,

The United States regards themselves this way? Is that not ignorant and generalized? He's honestly suggesting that people in the U.S. government secretly beileve they are "above the law."

One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." In addition to the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned: 1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; 2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; 3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; 4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror

I don't have the time to look up the Kyoto Protocols, but take a closer look at his other solutions. Each one is "sit back and let someone else handle it" OR "don't change what we are doing." Those aren't solutions, really.

6) give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centers disagree

Ignorant generalization. He just blatantly implied that the United States is 1) Indecent and 2) Has no respect for the opinion of mankind.

they appear to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the overwhelming majority. They are in radical opposition to public policy.

1. Bush was re-elected fair and square 2. I made a point earlier in this thread that Chomsky tries to criticize the US by mentioning how much criticism their actions generate, but yet every action or inaction they take is criticized. Here's your example of Chomsky using this tactic.

Another conservative suggestion is that facts, logic, and elementary moral principles should matter.

Ignorant generalization. Implication: The United States does not care about facts. It does not care about logic. It doesn't even have basic moral principles.

Honestly, am I lying? It's obvious isn't it?

Those who take the trouble to adhere to that suggestion will soon be led to abandon a good part of familiar doctrine, though it is surely much easier to repeat self-serving mantras.

Another one, although he at least went to the trouble of trying to conceal it. Implications: 1. The United States uses a "doctrine" (another accusation of non-thinking and ignorance) that is contrary to facts, logic and elementary morals. 2. The people in charge are lazy, self-serving, and repeat a "mantra" instead of actually backing up anything they do.

More important, they open the way to implement them, opportunities that are readily within our grasp if we can free ourselves from the shackles of doctrine and imposed illusion.

"Imposed illusion."

Am I just belaboring the point here? How many did I count up in one paragraph?

Much of this will be familiar to veteran Chomsky readers, but in this book he supplies a new twist. What, he asks, is a failed state? It is one that fails "to provide security for the population, to guarantee rights at home or abroad, or to maintain functioning (not merely formal) democratic institutions." On that definition, Chomsky argues, the United States is the world's biggest failed state.

And thank you for this last, perfect example of a gigantic equivocation.

 

[jimtron]

The United States regards themselves this way? Is that not ignorant and generalized? He's honestly suggesting that people in the U.S. government secretly beileve they are "above the law."

It's a demonstrable fact that the U.S. has defied international law. He didn't say secretly, did he? Don't you agree that Bush considered the U.S. to be above international law (ie, other countries should abide by it, but the U.S. doesn't need to)?

1. Bush was re-elected fair and square

IIRC, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. One of Chomsky's main points in the Failed State book, apparently, is that the government doesn't reflect the opinion of the people.

Ignorant generalization. Implication: The United States does not care about facts. It does not care about logic. It doesn't even have basic moral principles.

Honestly, am I lying? It's obvious isn't it?

Wouldn't you agree that the Bush and other admins play fast and loose with facts and logic? I believe that's a demonstrable fact.

 

[pipelineaudio]

chomsky = pwnt

 

[Chaos]

I meant population growth by immigration. Not to mention quality of life index, and rate of increase of quality of life index...

And you're more than welcome to view how the United States enforces its values compared to Sub-Saharan Africa, the USSR, China and any other country. The "secret police" in the United States is little more than liberal urban myths with very little actual evidence, whereas while the USSR and those other countries are/were around, they were VERY real. But this is of course obvious to anyone who can see beyond their blue-tinted shades. If you think these other countries "actions" in terms of how they enforce their values compare remotely to the United States, you're just full of crap. Seriously. Referring to the USA as a failed state is just sensationalist, exaggerated, equivocating garbage.

I have no ****ing idea why you think I´m equivocating the US with "Sub-Saharan Africa, the USSR, China and any other country". I simply said that you guys are not the knight in a spotless shining armor that you demand to be taken for (yes, "demand", because every suggestion to the contrary instantly triggers demonization as "Anti-American" - see your rant above as evidence).

If you want a discussion, please say so. Your personal attacks are just a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Darth Rotor]

IIRC, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. One of Chomsky's main points in the Failed State book, apparently, is that the government doesn't reflect the opinion of the people.

So what, our system is built on both popular vote and the electoral college, see Benjamin Harrison versus Grover Cleveland, please. Also, the opinion of "the people" is rather fractured, which is mitigated somewhat by having a Constitutional Republic. In a democracy where 100 people vote, and 51 people vote for a measure with 49 against, one can argue the Michael Moore line and claim that the people (those 49 all of a sudden becoming "the people") are not being represented. To what end, I am not sure, other than to whine that you didn't get your way. (In a related note, some Republicans in the House are apparently beginning to whine that they aren't getting any respect. No fooling, folks, your side lost the big match. )

Civics for fifty, Alex.

Wouldn't you agree that the Bush and other admins play fast and loose with facts and logic? I believe that's a demonstrable fact.

No question that the BushCo, like most administrations, play fast and loose with some facts for their political purposes. It's a dirty business. How does that state of play make Chomsky correct, given the style of presentation, which is hardly direct and up front, and the explicit holes that EGarret has shown you?

You seem to be both making a non sequitur, and demanding different standards.

DR

 

[EGarrett]

It's a demonstrable fact that the U.S. has defied international law.

I don't disagree with you.

It's also a demonstrable fact that I have defied U.S. law in the past, but I'm certainly not stupid enough to think I'm above the law or that it doesn't apply to me. That conclusion just doesn't follow from the evidence given.

He didn't say secretly, did he?

I assume that Bush has never come out and publicly laughed at international laws...and from what I remember Colin Powell went to great pains to give a presentation to the UN demonstrating WHY they planned to go to war with Iraq.

In other words, they haven't given any outward appearance that they believe they're above the law, which to me means that if you're going to say that, you must be implying that they secretly believe it.

But that's minor.

Don't you agree that Bush considered the U.S. to be above international law (ie, other countries should abide by it, but the U.S. doesn't need to)?

No, he may have ultimately moved against it, but he did send Powell to make that presentation. That seems a pretty reasonable show of respect.

IIRC, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. One of Chomsky's main points in the Failed State book, apparently, is that the government doesn't reflect the opinion of the people.

As I said, Bush was re-elected fair and square. If the will of the people was crushed in 2000, then Bush should have lost by a big margin in 2004.

And remember, no one puts you on TV if you're content and don't want to complain. The people who hate the government get the most press by far.

Wouldn't you agree that the Bush and other admins play fast and loose with facts and logic? I believe that's a demonstrable fact.

I don't believe he did it any way that makes him stand out as a particularly manipulative politician. Like it or not, there WAS logic to his decision, that fit what he was saying. He's hardly a self-serving, lazy, unthinking, arrogant, aggressive, violent bully who thinks he's above the law and has no grasp of morals, facts or logic. That's just ridiculous.