Noam on stuff

[marksman]

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

No, I'm not. I already gave you the article and the quote.

Here is the thesis of the article: "Five centuries after the European conquests, Latin America is reasserting its independence."
Sounds like a general observation? Good, because it is.

As evidence to support the general thesis of that article, he writes the following:

"It is instructive to compare recent presidential elections in the richest country of the world and the poorest country in South America."

He is using the two most recent elections as evidence of the thesis he states at the beginning of the article. He then compares the Kerry-Bush election with the Morales election.

It is clearly disingenuous because it's such a selective sample. Had he gone to the Clinton-Bush election, the comparison wouldn't hold. Heck, if he had gone to the Clinton-Dole election, he'd have to grapple with the fact that both American Presidential candidates came from humble backgrounds.

If his comparison of these elections was not intended to support the thesis statement of his article -- even though it occupies a full third of the article itself -- then Chomsky is the world's worst writer. And Chomsky is certainly not a poor writer.

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.

When have I disagreed with his world-view? Never. I disagree with his scholarship because I am a fan of history and he mangles history every day. I feel exactly the same way about Patrick Buchanan, who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum as Chomsky. Both of them are very persuasive writers with absolutely no ability to engage in decent historical scholarship. But people buy their statements of history because they like the conclusions.

I don't care about the conclusions of either Chomsky or Buchanan because I cannot trust such conclusions as they are based on an appallingly bad grasp fo the facts. And that's what I care about.

I am not Skeptic. I don't think Chomsky is a Marxist. And I wouldn't care even if he were. I think Chomsky is an intellectual pedagogue.

You told me the US did not oppose Morales.

No, I didn't. I said not all of the United States government oppsed Morales. For some reason you think denying a thesis means the embrace of the opposite of the thesis, but it doesn't.

Chomsky wrote that the United States government opposes Morales. I pointed out that, before the article was written, there was a large and public meeting by the majority members of Congress supporting him. Did Chomsky mention that? No. He did not. Why? Because the actual facts were inconvenient to the article's thesis. So he ignrored them. That's why I don't like Chomsky.

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.

But Chomsky was discussing the causes of the project. Causes must come before the event. Israeli and American threats could not have preceded their commencement of the program and thus could not have caused it, but Chomsky writes as if this could be so.

No I do not. Chavez is not anti-US either.

Who cares? Not I. Chaves could drape the Empire State building in an American flag and burn it to the ground for all I care. He could strap on an Uzi, fly to Pakistan and singlehandedly capture the entire Al Quaeda network for all I care. Neither of those actions would make his scholarship less dreadful.

 

[Merko]

He is using the two most recent elections as evidence of the thesis he states at the beginning of the article. He then compares the Kerry-Bush election with the Morales election.

It is clearly disingenuous because it's such a selective sample. Had he gone to the Clinton-Bush election, the comparison wouldn't hold. Heck, if he had gone to the Clinton-Dole election, he'd have to grapple with the fact that both American Presidential candidates came from humble backgrounds.

Hmm, what is it that you're arguing really - the idea that the personal wealth of just the latest candidates of these countries are not sufficient statistics to draw a general conclusion - or the idea that comparing the two latest elections can teach us nothing at all?

These are two very different claims. The personal wealth issue, I can agree, is something that can not be determined based only on a comparison between two elections. But Chomsky makes many more points of comparisons.

Of course this is just anecdotal evidence. It would tell us much more if someone made a systematic comparison involving more countries, though a problem would be to define criteria for inclusion. But I don't think that anecdotal evidence is always useless, and certainly not when the anecdote in question is on this level of importance.

If his comparison of these elections was not intended to support the thesis statement of his article -- even though it occupies a full third of the article itself -- then Chomsky is the world's worst writer. And Chomsky is certainly not a poor writer.

The comparison of the elections may be a third, of the article, but the comparison of the personal wealths was 11% according to my word count.

Arguing that you can't compare the two most recent elections in two countries and learn something from it seems absurd to me. You can argue that the comparison was biased, if you like. That's what a debate is all about. But you seem to argue about even making the comparison.

I don't care about the conclusions of either Chomsky or Buchanan because I cannot trust such conclusions as they are based on an appallingly bad grasp fo the facts.

I don't care much about the conclusions of Chomsky either, but I do care for the interesting facts he often manages to dig up. I agree that they are very selective facts. I do not consider him to provide an accurate representation of history. It is a bit like Nicolas Werth's description of the Soviet terror in the Black book of communism, you get to see only one side, somewhere there's a lone sentence of how the 'Whites' killed at least 100000 Jews during the civil war, but basically Werth doesn't provide us with the historical context to be able to understand the atrocities of the Red Army (or the Soviet in general). However, it is still a good source of information for what it is, which is basically a list of Soviet atrocities. It is terrible seen as an account of Soviet history, even with a perspective of repression (the rest of the Black book is however substandard in all regards).

In Chomsky's defense, he can reasonably expect his audience to have a knowledge of the historical context of the subjects he's discussing. Werth, being a scholar, might also expect that normally, except that for the case of the Black book the target audience wasn't really Sovietologists.

No, I didn't. I said not all of the United States government oppsed Morales.

I think you're splitting hairs. I think any reasonable reader will expect that Chomsky is referring to the President, the Cabinet, the official spokespersons for the US, rather than some consensus US opinion. Yes, there are many Americans that welcome the recent years' maturisation of Latin American politics. Just not the government - in the normally understood sense of how to interpret the opinion of governments.

But Chomsky was discussing the causes of the project. Causes must come before the event. Israeli and American threats could not have preceded their commencement of the program and thus could not have caused it, but Chomsky writes as if this could be so.

What is 'the project'? Any nuclear research? Or actually building a real bomb? These threats can very well become causes for the project of building a real bomb. That is what matters.

Who cares? Not I. Chaves could drape the Empire State building in an American flag and burn it to the ground for all I care. He could strap on an Uzi, fly to Pakistan and singlehandedly capture the entire Al Quaeda network for all I care. Neither of those actions would make his scholarship less dreadful.

Chavez is a scholar? Or he offers a scholarship? What makes the scholarship dreadful?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Everybody who is not terribly pessimistic about a lot of things by about age 25 should probably have his brain checked.

That's cynic, not skeptic.

That said, that Chomsky has a lot of bad stuff to say about the US and little bad stuff to say about, for example, Iran, *might* be because he thinks that the US, as a society, is open enough that changing the bad stuff is possible.

I'd bet with you on that score.

Judging from the responses coming from the usual suspects, I´m somewhat inclined to say he is wrong.

Ah, the mental turd still finds its way into your punchbowl.

DR

 

[Chaos]

That's cynic, not skeptic.

Just realistic.

I'd bet with you on that score.

That criticism of the US might bring about change? Or that Chomsky thinks it could?

Ah, the mental turd still finds its way into your punchbowl.

DR

It wasn´t me who dropped it there. I can only judge from past experience. The way you and others want me to believe it is does not enter into this.

 

[marksman]

Hmm, what is it that you're arguing really - the idea that the personal wealth of just the latest candidates of these countries are not sufficient statistics to draw a general conclusion - or the idea that comparing the two latest elections can teach us nothing at all?

I am arguing that Chomsky's political articles are either badly researched or intentionally misleading. Specifically, in the article referenced herein, Chomsky attempts to support his thesis (that Latin American is gaining in political independence from the US) by comparing one election in Bolivia with one election in the United States. However, his presentation of the facts is skewed on many grounds.

First, because the examination of such a small data set (two elections) doesn't tell us anything about trends in an entire region.

Second, because the data set he chose seems particularly skewed to fit his thesis. Morales' election is chosen because Morales is from humble origins. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, with similar political leanings as Morales, is not mentioned, because he came from a relatively affluent family. Alan Garcia of Peru, also recently elected, is also ignored due to his affluent childhood. Same with Felipe Calderon, recently elected in Mexico.

The American election he chooses to compare Morales' election with -- the Bush-Kerry election, is also skewed to fit his thesis. The Bush-Kerry election had the wealthiest candidates in American history. Had he reviewed the two Clinton elections (Clinton-Bush and Clinton-Dole), the contrast with the Morales election would not have been nearly as stark.

It is particularly skewed because his citation of Morales was designed to show that now Latin America is choosing people who more closely resemble the common Latin American (of humble background) while America, in contrast, is choosing wealthy elites. But most of the Latin Americans elected in the last few years are from the economic elites of their respective nations.

Third, his comparison betrays an ignorance of history. It is not difficult to find Latin American elected officials of humble backgrounds. Juan Peron, for example. Or President Escobar of Chile. The fact that one of the handful of elected officials of Latin America was of humble birth isn't evidence of anything because, historically, there has often been an elected Latin American leader of humble birth.

Now, am I going to take issue with his thesis (that Latin America is growing more independent from the US)? How can I, since his argument is unclear and based on faulty analogies and premises. And that's my beef with Chomsky.

His arguments are almost always based on flawed analogies and premises, on a skewed presentation of facts and on style over substance.

But Chomsky makes many more points of comparisons.

The comparisons of the elections occupies a full third of the article. That's an astounding proportion of wasted space.

But I don't think that anecdotal evidence is always useless, and certainly not when the anecdote in question is on this level of importance.

The anecdote is useless because it is transparently flawed. A more sophisticated analysis of Latin American history would in no way support the comparison.

The comparison of the elections may be a third, of the article, but the comparison of the personal wealths was 11% according to my word count.

But that was only one of many problems with the comparison, as I have pointed out.

Arguing that you can't compare the two most recent elections in two countries and learn something from it seems absurd to me.

I really don't care what things seem to you. It is Chomsky's analogy that is absurd to anybody with a basic knowledge of Latin American history.

I don't care much about the conclusions of Chomsky either, but I do care for the interesting facts he often manages to dig up. I agree that they are very selective facts. I do not consider him to provide an accurate representation of history.

But his conclusions come from those "selective" facts.

And if you don't care about his conclusions and you accept that his facts are "selective", why is it you like him? What's left? His facts are flawed and his conclusions therefore unreliable. All I can think of is that you enjoy his prose and that he happens to agree with you politically.

However, it is still a good source of information for what it is, which is basically a list of Soviet atrocities.

But Chomsky is not a good source of information. The facts he includes are often out of context, they are sometimes inaccurate, or they give a false impression. Unless you look into it yourself, relying on Chomsky's facts will lead you to make all sorts of faulty conclusions.

In Chomsky's defense, he can reasonably expect his audience to have a knowledge of the historical context of the subjects he's discussing.

If that were true, then nobody would listen to him. Chomsky's arguments depend on people swallowing the skewed presentation of facts.

Anybody who knows Latin American history rejects Chomsky's arguments. Most scholars who like him have told me they admire his "bravery" for saying unpopular things even though they acknowledge that reading Chomsky for political theories is like reading former UN Chairman Kofi Annan's theories of relativity.

I think you're splitting hairs. I think any reasonable reader will expect that Chomsky is referring to the President, the Cabinet, the official spokespersons for the US, rather than some consensus US opinion.

I think that the fact that Congressional leaders were publicly showing support for him undermines the entire argument he is making. At a minimum, Chomsky needs to deal with inconvenient facts. Again, he skews things.

What is 'the project'? Any nuclear research? Or actually building a real bomb?

Pursuing nuclear reasearch for other than peaceful purposes. America and Israel didn't make the threats out of whole cloth. It is simply logically impossible for threats caused by a nascent muke program to cause that very same nuke program.

Chavez is a scholar? Or he offers a scholarship? What makes the scholarship dreadful?

I meant Chomsky's scholarship, not Chavez' scholarship. Sorry.

 

[marksman]

The comparison of the elections may be a third, of the article, but the comparison of the personal wealths was 11% according to my word count.

Let's check the factual assertions in this article to see if any of them support his thesis that Latin America is now asserting its independence from America.

"A persuasive explanation for this has been offered by Argentine political scientist Atilio Boron, who observed that the new wave of democratization coincided with externally mandated economic "reforms" that undermine effective democracy."

Chomsky is likely referring to Boron's articles, like this one speaking about the democratization of Latin America. Except that while Chomsky is using the article to explain the "new wave" of democratization, Boron has identified this trend as stretching back into the 1970's! That's not new at all.

Nor can Chomsky plead ignorance of Boron's ideas. Boron has interviewed Chomsky. He and Chomsky are friends, politically and socially. He is blatantly misstating Boron's ideas. Boron is an actual historian. His analyses are astute, and his facts well-researched, regardless of any biases. I cannot say the same for Chomsky.

Right, moving on...
"In a world of nation-states, it is true by definition that decline of sovereignty entails decline of democracy, and decline in ability to conduct social and economic policy. That in turn harms development."

I don't think this can be stated so baldly as being accurate. Many undemocratic nations conduct social and economic policies just fine. China does. Singapore is no model of democracy and doesn't seem to have a problem. Saudia Arabia as well. Being charitable, it appears that Chomsky is making some sort of argument that democracies are harder to be manipulated by wealth, but that's not clear at all, and it certainly isn't "true by definition."

"The historical record also reveals that loss of sovereignty consistently leads to imposed liberalization..."
Well, this is a very odd phrasing. What he appears to mean is that when a nation becomes servient to a larger power, they are often compelled to trade with that power. That is true, but it's not what one would call "liberalization." When China was compelled to open trade with European powers after the Opium Wars, that wasn't liberalized trade, but very limited trade with the victors. Chomsky is using linguistic trickery to equate open trade with imperialism. And while that is a thesis that can be legitimately argued, Chomsky is not making any sort of legitimate argument here.

Then he compares Morales' election with Bush-Kerry, a topic I've already discussed.

"Latin America has close to the world's worst record for inequality, East Asia the best. The same holds for education, health and social welfare generally."
-I don't disagree, except to note that there are only nine world regions at this scale: North America, Western Europe, Oceania, East Asia, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Latin America, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa. The truth is that Latin America and East Asia aren't that far off on income equality.

Edit: If we look at wealth/pop. figures[/url (p. 49), we'll see that the regional division, from wealthiest to poorest is: North America, Oceania, Europe, Latin America, Asia (other), Asia (China), Asia (India), Africa. Latin America is actually wealthier than any Asian region. (Obviously, South Korea and Japan's wealth is diluted by it's inclusion with Singapore, Malaysia, North Korea, Thailand, etc., but that's what happens when you look at things regiionally.)

But anyway, let's see what relevance Chomsky ascribes this factoid...
"Latin American economies have also been more open to foreign investment than Asia. The World Bank reported that foreign investment and privatization have tended to substitute for other capital flows in Latin America, transferring control and sending profits abroad, unlike East Asia."
It appears that Chomsky is arguing that because Latin America is more "open to foreign investment", it is not excelling economically, unlike East Asian economies that are less open to foreign investment.

The problem is that I don't know where he gets this factoid. My understanding is that East Asian boom economies are stimulated by liberalized foreign investment. That's where they got their capital. Look again at the booming economies of East Asia: Singapore, Hong Kong, China. These are countries that are politically repressive, but open to foreign investment. And yet Chomsky is arguing the reverse -- that countries that are politically free and economically closed have lower wealth disparaties! Now, again, the point is certainlya rguable. But where is Chomsky getting his figures from? He doesn't say and it isn't nearly as intuitive as he makes it out to be.

Finally, let's move on to yet another astounding misstatement by Chomsky:
"new socioeconomic programs under way in Latin America are reversing patterns that trace back to the Spanish conquests - with Latin American elites and economies linked to the imperial powers but not to one another.

Of course this shift is highly unwelcome in Washington, for the traditional reasons: The United States expects to rely on Latin America as a secure base for resources, markets and investment opportunities."

This is utterly untrue. If America can be said to have had a consistent foreign policy for Latin America, it has been the establishment of free trade zones that establish free trade not only between America and Latin America, but between the Latin American members. CAFTA (Central American Free Trade) was proposed in 2003. The Central American Common Market was devised in 1996! CARICOM (Caribbean Common Market) began in 2001. These are just a handful of free trade agreements designed not only to facilitate American-Latin American trade, but intra-American trade. Does Chomsky even obliquely reference these agreements? No.

There isn't a single fact in his articles that can withstand scrutiny. It is either false or it doesn't actually support his thesis. This is not uncommon with his articles, and his books are only barely better researched.

Chomsky is not an historian. He is not a political scientist. He is not an economist. His statements on these issues are not well-researched, are not well-informed. It would be a mistake to rely on anything Chomsky says iun these areas.

He's a smart guy. He's a good writer. In linguistics, apparently, he is groundbreaking. But he's decided to stray into other fields and he didn't bring his intellectual rigor with him.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Or that Chomsky thinks it could?

That Chomsky thinks it could, and perhaps that it should, but that he'd be wasting his time on your other example, Iran. Noam is a man getting on in years, and I don't think he'd feel his time well spent arguing against things no one will listen to. As it is, his style (marksman and EGarret critique it well) limits his audience, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Dissent is a needed function of a free society.


As to I {and others?} want you to believe? What car on the CT train were you riding before you fell off?

DR

 

[Merko]

First, because the examination of such a small data set (two elections) doesn't tell us anything about trends in an entire region.

No, for that we need to combine many analyses. However, that does not invalidate this analysis. I am sure Chomsky has also commented on the development in many other Latin American nations.

I don't think Chomsky is trying to convert new followers to the theory of Latin American democratic maturisation with this article. I think he is writing mainly to those already agreeing with this general theory, and examining whether the Bolivian case agrees with the theory, or if it does not. He finds that it agrees with the theory.

Second, because the data set he chose seems particularly skewed to fit his thesis. Morales' election is chosen because Morales is from humble origins. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, with similar political leanings as Morales, is not mentioned, because he came from a relatively affluent family.

Not more affluent than, say Clinton, as far as I can find out. Certainly not from the economic elite. Besides, I don't think Nicaragua is 'ignored', he's just not the subject of this very short article.

Alan Garcia of Peru, also recently elected, is also ignored due to his affluent childhood. Same with Felipe Calderon, recently elected in Mexico.

According to Wikipedia, Garcia was from a middle-class family. Do you have any evidence that Calderon had an affluent childhood? Wikipedia describes his father as a 'politician and writer', who left the PAN party because he thought it had 'become a right-wing party that served only the interests of the rich'. No mention of riches.

It seems to me that you're guilty yourself of skewing the facts quite a bit. You describe Clinton as rising from 'abject poverty', when his stepfather in fact was the co-owner of an automobile dealership business. Garcia's and Calderon's childhoods are described as 'affluent' with no apparent factual basis.

Additionally, you have to be politically blind to include Garcia and Calderon in Chomsky's proposed 'new wave'. Their opponents, Ollanta Humala and López Obrador were the candidates of the 'new wave' (neither of them from the economic elites, either). Still, these elections do not appear to discredit Chomsky's theory - even the 'old' candidates do not appear to consistently come out of the economic elites.

But most of the Latin Americans elected in the last few years are from the economic elites of their respective nations.

Evidence? This appears to be just plain wrong. Out of those you mentioned, neither seem to fit the description. Chavez was certainly extremely poor. Michele Bachelet, the new Chilean president, was from an academic but not affluent family. Argentina's president, Néstor Kirchner, was the son of a post office official. Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio da Silva, rose from deep poverty.

Seems Chomsky's thesis holds pretty well.

Now, am I going to take issue with his thesis (that Latin America is growing more independent from the US)? How can I, since his argument is unclear and based on faulty analogies and premises. And that's my beef with Chomsky.

You could do that by exposing his false premises, but you don't seem to be doing to well.

The comparisons of the elections occupies a full third of the article. That's an astounding proportion of wasted space.

But the comparison, as a whole, is completely valid. One case, yes, but all such political theories are based on cases. If you have many cases, your theory is strong. This case is one point in favour of Chomsky's theory. No one claimed it would be 'absolute proof'.

A more sophisticated analysis of Latin American history would in no way support the comparison.

That is your opinion - I disagree strongly.

I really don't care what things seem to you. It is Chomsky's analogy that is absurd to anybody with a basic knowledge of Latin American history.

I don't think you're qualified to wield this argument. It is not even an appeal to authority since no specific authorities are given - merely the empty assertion that such authority would exist.

But his conclusions come from those "selective" facts.

Everybody arguing a point offers selective facts that support their arguments. Chomsky is no different and you appear to single him out only because you happen to disagree with him.

And if you don't care about his conclusions and you accept that his facts are "selective", why is it you like him?

Because he is a good source of facts. And I think his theories are usually very good too - I'm just not too interested in them personally.

But Chomsky is not a good source of information. The facts he includes are often out of context, they are sometimes inaccurate, or they give a false impression.

Everyone is 'sometimes inaccurate'. Any evidence that Chomsky would be more inaccurate than most? Of course anybody arguing contrary to your view will be giving a 'false impression', in your opinion. But that is just opinions.

Anybody who knows Latin American history rejects Chomsky's arguments.

Ridiculous.

Pursuing nuclear reasearch for other than peaceful purposes. America and Israel didn't make the threats out of whole cloth. It is simply logically impossible for threats caused by a nascent muke program to cause that very same nuke program.

Nobody cares much if Iran merely pursue nuclear research. It is the actual construction of nuclear bombs that are the problem. This is what the US and Israeli threats may be a contributing cause of.

Boron has identified this trend as stretching back into the 1970's! That's not new at all.

New enough to me. Democracies don't mature overnight. Besides, Chomsky doesn't give any different account of Boron's theories:

A persuasive explanation for this has been offered by Argentine political scientist Atilio Boron, who observed that the new wave of democratization coincided with externally mandated economic "reforms" that undermine effective democracy.

I bolded the past tenses for clarity.

Being charitable, it appears that Chomsky is making some sort of argument that democracies are harder to be manipulated by wealth, but that's not clear at all, and it certainly isn't "true by definition."

What is true by definition is that 'decline of sovereignty entails decline of democracy'. Democracy means the rule of the people. If a nation is not even sovereign, it does not rule itself, and so it cannot, by definition, be ruled by its people.

What he appears to mean is that when a nation becomes servient to a larger power, they are often compelled to trade with that power. That is true, but it's not what one would call "liberalization." When China was compelled to open trade with European powers after the Opium Wars, that wasn't liberalized trade, but very limited trade with the victors. Chomsky is using linguistic trickery to equate open trade with imperialism.

He is indeed referring to the so-called 'free trade' agreements, perhaps the FTAA/ALCA in particular. The 'new wave' politicians of Latin America have brought extensive criticism to these agreements and either offered a complete alternative (Chavez, Morales, Ortega) or demanded very significant amendments (Lula, Kirchner).

My understanding is that East Asian boom economies are stimulated by liberalized foreign investment. That's where they got their capital. Look again at the booming economies of East Asia: Singapore, Hong Kong, China.

Well, I strongly disagree. These countries indeed did have much more extensive restrictions on investment compared to Latin America. They got their capital by building a domestic industry, not from foreign investors. Of course, they have not been completely closed to foreign investment either, but it has been more on their terms. This is an enormous and complex subject and I don't have time to debate it in detail here, but let's just say that you clearly disagree with me and Chomsky on this matter.

 

[marksman]

No, for that we need to combine many analyses. However, that does not invalidate this analysis. I am sure Chomsky has also commented on the development in many other Latin American nations.

Non sequitur. He didn't make that comment in this article. Nor was the topic of the article "Does Bolivia fit with my preconceived political theories." His article was about a general statement and he used a discrete data point as evidence.

I don't think Chomsky is trying to convert new followers to the theory of Latin American democratic maturisation with this article. I think he is writing mainly to those already agreeing with this general theory...

Exactly. That's all he ever does.

The topic somebody asked is why people don't like Chomsky. I gave my answer: his articles are poorly researched and skew the facts to fit his theories. You have admitted his facts are selective. You have admitted you don't care about his conclusions.

So what's your beef with my point? Can you abide the fact that I don't like Chomsky's scholarship?

examining whether the Bolivian case agrees with the theory, or if it does not. He finds that it agrees with the theory.

Except that's not what he wrote he is doing. Once again, you're inventing motivations for him that don't appear in the article. Apologetics noted.

Not more affluent than, say Clinton, as far as I can find out.

Clinton was born in poverty. He was raised in an abusive household of an alcoholic and as far as I can tell his stepdad may have owned n auto dealership, but didn't make much money at it, if at all. (See aforementioned alcoholism.) Until you, I never heard much dispute that Clinton came from the lower class. For evidence, I urge you to read his autobiography.

Certainly not from the economic elite.

In Latin America, the middle class is the economic elite, because the vast majority of people are poor. (Unlike the United States, which has a very large middle class.) That's one of the major distinctions between developing nations and developed nations.

Besides, I don't think Nicaragua is 'ignored', he's just not the subject of this very short article.

Because the data doesn't support his point. If it were to be included, it would counter Chomsky's point. When has Chomsky ever acknowledged inconvenient facts that need to be dinstinguished?

According to Wikipedia, Garcia was from a middle-class family. Do you have any evidence that Calderon had an affluent childhood?

In Peru, middle class is among the economic elite, because so few people rise above poverty.

Wikipedia describes his father as a 'politician and writer', who left the PAN party because he thought it had 'become a right-wing party that served only the interests of the rich'. No mention of riches.

I've lived in Mexico. Calderon's family was among the intelligentsia. His family has plenty of money. One did not make a living at being a political writer in Mexico fifty-plus years ago without having received the education one can only get by coming from a well-off family.

It seems to me that you're guilty yourself of skewing the facts quite a bit.

It only seems that way to you because you seem to have no actual knowledge of economic reality in Latin America, which might explain why you are so prepared to accept CHomsky's facts as accurate representations.

Additionally, you have to be politically blind to include Garcia and Calderon in Chomsky's proposed 'new wave'.

No. Chomsky is describing trends in Latin America. There were many elections in Latin America at the time, and most of them don't fit the "trend" that Chomsky is advocating. Again, he ignores inconvenient facts.

Evidence?

I gave you the evidence. For some reason, you don't think being middle class in a third-world nation qualifies as being in the economic elite. And yet you are totally prepared to accept Chomsky's assertions.

Actually, I don't know what you like about Chomsky. You haven't answered that question. You acknowledge his fatcs are skewed. You say you don't care about his conclusions. What is it you like?

Seems Chomsky's thesis holds pretty well.

Only because you've invented a new thesis for him, that he hasn't stated and he hasn't supported.

But the comparison, as a whole, is completely valid. One case, yes, but all such political theories are based on cases.

There I emphasized the plural. Has he put forward "cases"? No.

I don't think you're qualified to wield this argument.

I don't think you know anything about Latin American economics at all. FOr you to even suggest that someone with a middle class background is not an elite in Peru is to betray a total ignorance of economic conditions in Peru. To believe that Calderon's family could have supported a father who is a writer and yet isn't from an affluent family is just ignorant.

I can't educate you about Latin American history on a message board. If you want to to think that Chomsky's facts make sense and you won't follow up with research of your own I can't force you to do it. Not through a message board. But I'll leave it to others to conclude whether your defenses of Chomsky are reasonable.

Chomsky is no different and you appear to single him out only because you happen to disagree with him.

I didn't single him out. This is a thread about him, so I'm discussing his selective use of facts. In fact, I have repeatedly mentioned another political writer who makes selective use of facts -- Patrick Buchanan.

Your complaint is bizarre. This is a thread about Comsky, so of course we talk about Chomsky. It's as if you were complaining that this board always discusses Politics, Current Events and Social Issues!

Because he is a good source of facts.

No, he's really, really not.

And I think his theories are usually very good too - I'm just not too interested in them personally.

What are those theories? Can you articulate them? I couldn't, since he rarely states actual theories in his articles or books. He states ocassional theses, but rarely backs them up.

I contrast this with his writings on linguistics, for which he has apparently obtained legitimate acclaim. The man knows what he is doing.

Everyone is 'sometimes inaccurate'. Any evidence that Chomsky would be more inaccurate than most?

I don't know what most people's rate of inaccuracies are. But in the article I examined closely, and detailed above, I didn't find much if it all that was accurate. (By "accurate" I meant both factually true and supportive of the thesis of the article in which they were presented.) If his rate of success is typical, then most people are wrong all of the time.

Of course anybody arguing contrary to your view will be giving a 'false impression', in your opinion.

Will you please stop accusing me of disagreeing with Chomsky politically? You have no basis for such an accusation and it's really a rather pathetic display. I have explained to you repeatedly that I don't care what his political opinions are, and I actually have trouble discerning them from his essays and writings. I care about the quality of his scholarship in historical analysis. The accusation is particularly absurd since the one political theorist whose scholarship I have complimented -- Boron's -- has political opinions that appear very complimentary to Chomsky.

One would think if, as you accuse, that I rejected the works of people who disagree with me and that I disagree with Chomsky, that I wouldn't go around complimnting people like Boron. But I did. So you're wrong. Please stop it.

Nobody cares much if Iran merely pursue nuclear research. It is the actual construction of nuclear bombs that are the problem. This is what the US and Israeli threats may be a contributing cause of.

That's absurd. The nuclear research is integral to making nuclear bombs!

New enough to me. Democracies don't mature overnight.

Yet Chomsky's article is about this year's (technically 2006's) elections! HChomsky isn't making statements about the last 30 years! Have you actually read the article we're discussing?

What is true by definition is that 'decline of sovereignty entails decline of democracy'. Democracy means the rule of the people. If a nation is not even sovereign, it does not rule itself, and so it cannot, by definition, be ruled by its people.

Then his statement is meaningless as it doesn't actually lead to anything relevant.

He is indeed referring to the so-called 'free trade' agreements, perhaps the FTAA/ALCA in particular. The 'new wave' politicians of Latin America have brought extensive criticism to these agreements and either offered a complete alternative (Chavez, Morales, Ortega) or demanded very significant amendments (Lula, Kirchner).

Evidence? He doesn't refer to them in his article. Not one word. Me thinks that once again you are projecting onto his article a position that you hold and then are assuming that Chomsky agrees with you.

Well, I strongly disagree. These countries indeed did have much more extensive restrictions on investment compared to Latin America. They got their capital by building a domestic industry, not from foreign investors.

Evidence? Singapore was very aggressive in luring foreign investors. Hong Kong is founded on it and China is trying to emulate Hong Kong.

 

[Darth Rotor]

PWNS Merko

Marksman, would you like an icepack? You seem to have been doing battle with a brick wall. (There is a beer concealed beneath the ice, of course . . .)

DR

 

[marksman]

I actually have no idea what Merko's beef with me is. It's not like I'm calling Chomsky a commie pinko or a reactionary or some such. I'm not criticizing his politics, just his scholarship.

And on that point, Merko doesn't seem to disagree, or at least he won't come out and say he disagrees. He appears to like the ocassional factoid that Chomsky references, as if Chomsky were a kind of "historical trivia-a-day" calendar. He acknowledges that Chomsky's presentation of facts is selective. he states he doesn't care about his theories.

So if Chomsky's scholarship isn't important to Merko, why does he care if I don't like Chomsky's scholarship?

The OP asked why people don't like Chomsky. I answered. Is Merko upset that Chomsky isn't universally adulated?

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
As to I {and others?} want you to believe? What car on the CT train were you riding before you fell off?

DR

Oh no, nothing like that.

It´s just that you´re trying fairly hard to pretend that you´re actually engaging in a discussion in which there might actually be the proverbial snowball´s chance in hell that a well-presented argument might change your mind.
In reality, though, it is blindingly obvious that you guys are here to demonize anyone who disagrees with you and to bash any dissent. Which is not, I´m afraid, what a free society is all about.

 

[EGarrett]

It´s just that you´re trying fairly hard to pretend that you´re actually engaging in a discussion in which there might actually be the proverbial snowball´s chance in hell that a well-presented argument might change your mind.

1. Since I've yet to see a well-presented argument, I have no idea if it would change my mind. Though it probably would adjust my thinking.

2. You don't engage in arguments/debates/internet-slapfights to change the mind of the person you're arguing with. The mere act of "winning" the argument will make them too angry to ever listen to you. Instead, you engage in the argument for the sake of other people who might be reading.

In reality, though, it is blindingly obvious that you guys are here to demonize anyone who disagrees with you and to bash any dissent. Which is not, I´m afraid, what a free society is all about.

This sounds suspiciously like those "none of you are open minded!" cries that believers-wooists make before vanishing from a skepticism/paranormal thread.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh no, nothing like that.

It´s just that you´re trying fairly hard to pretend that you´re actually engaging in a discussion in which there might actually be the proverbial snowball´s chance in hell that a well-presented argument might change your mind.

I need more than a load of hot air to change my mind, and I suspect most here, on either side of the coin, feel similarly.

In reality, though, it is blindingly obvious that you guys are here to demonize anyone who disagrees with you and to bash any dissent. Which is not, I´m afraid, what a free society is all about.

Are you aware that you just pegged the irony meter? Building a man of straw to burn in effigy doesn't help your presentation of points.

The free and open discourse is alive and well. It's all over this thread. That you can't find a way to convince people that your position is valid -- thanks in part to your ad hom laden prose -- is not an indication of a free society in tatters, but in your shortcomings in presenting your case.

Did someone delete your posts?

Let's look at a sampling of your outbursts for a moment, shall we?

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).

Hypberbole, overstatement, and a lack of facts in the strawman "you guys" when marksman and E Garret spell out their objections to Chomsky's style with great detail throughout the thread.

Me, I'll freely admit to poking you in the eye once you started shouting. Have I once told you to shut up? No, I've suggested that if you complain about people objecting to America bashing in your posts, then you might want to post where people won't react to it. You are of course free to choose. You on the other hand demanded that E Garrett shut up.

We can´t have a discussion like that. Reply to what I say, instead of making up your own **** and attacking me for that, or just shut up. Anything else is a pointless waste of time.

The guy you are dumping on is such a one way quasher of dissent. EGarrett to Merko:

I frequently disagree with you, but it is posts like this that make you always worth reading and your comments worth considering.

But a polite fellow like EGarrett, with whom you disagree, seems to anger you.

Either, you have a discussion. That means you respond to what somebody actually says. Or, you troll. Which means you make up **** about somebody, make up some more **** to "debunk" the first ****, and then proceed to make personal attacks.

The personal attack, name calling, troll, seems to have come from du, mein herr. Also, to troll is to post inflammatory posts in the hopes of eliciting an emotional response. That you choose to respond emotionally to a post, however, is not evidence that a post was a troll, but that you are prone to emotional responses. (This is clearly in evidence by your posting in this thread after the first few. I know how it works, I've done it too. )

You apparently think that the US is absolutely flawless, and that suggesting otherwise means comparing the US unfavorably to the worst of dictatorships; your posts have clearly shown that. Your posts have also clearly shown that you are pathetically unable to honestly represent an argument you disagree with and respond to it in an even marginally civil manner.

So you now try to tar him with a brush of your own invention.

This is unfortunate, as your first post in this thread, was IMO well worth reading, and an angle I would not have considered in the same light. In a forum, part of the value is to see a wide spectrum of ideas. That is why, like EGarrett remarked to Merko, Chaos, that while I often disagree with you, I read your posts since some of them provide a fine insight.

Why you want to cry that people are trying to "quash dissent" is beyond me. If your arguments or points are weak, expect them to be pilloried. If they reflect a common bias, expect that to be pointed out as well.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

DR

 

[Garrette]

IThe guy you are dumping on is such a one way quasher of dissent. EGarrett to Merko:

Actually, the post you quoted was mine and not Egarrett's.

It's understandable why you confused us. Just remember: I'm the handsome one.

 

[robinson]

Noam is a good researcher. He lists all his sources.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, the post you quoted was mine and not Egarrett's.

It's understandable why you confused us. Just remember: I'm the handsome one.

Dyslexia for fifty, Alex. Can I borrow your hanky, you handsome devil?

I seem to need wiping a bit of egg off of my face!

DR

 

[marksman]

Noam is a good researcher. He lists all his sources.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Noam is a good researcher. He lists all his sources.

evidence?

 

[marksman]

Psst. Robinson's being facetious. Chomsky rarely lists his sources.

edit: correction. His books since 1993 rarely list sources. Before 1993, he did include bibliographies with references to the facts for which he used them. Whether they actually support the point for which he cited them is another matter, but he did list them. This can be confirmed by reviewing the tables of contents for his books, which are on his website, and seeing which ones mntion a bibliography or notes.

His articles almost never list sources.