The problem with Chomsky understading without proper context.

[angrysoba]

Well I think you misunderstood what I meant. It wasn't a choice of either car or train. There would still be a highway system, albeit a smaller one. Most of the traffic though would be train based, because it makes economic sense. Think of this in terms of public policy. Overall for tourism and commercial transportation the train system would have been a better choice, because of the highway system we have a much higher overhead when it comes to transportation costs, especially with the volatile price of oil.(you know one of the reasons we got into the recession and a contributor to the current one we might have.) So in terms of public policy the train solution was a better alternative irregardless of personal transportation preference.

This is the type of thing that I don't understand when it comes to Chomskians.

When you say, "Most of the traffic though would be train based, because it makes economic sense. Think of this in terms of public policy."

Public policy? Who comes up with public policy given that if you accept Chomsky's preference for anarcho-syndicalism (or libertarian socialism or whatever you choose to call it) then you are going to have to entrust transportation policy to an institution which you simply hope won't act in its own interest.

And at the same time you are saying that it should not be up to people to drive cars if they wish but you are going to have to somehow persuade everyone that travelling by train is better. Are trains necessary in an anarcho-syndalicalist world, by the way? Would it make economic sense to have people commuting hundreds or even thousands of kilometres? Are you suggesting some kind of planned economy? And if so, who is going to make the decisions?

 

[maxbowman]

The value of Noam Chomsky is that he gets young people off the reflexive, jingoistic support of America that is mindless. The negative is he replaces it with a reflexive anti-Americanism that is equally mindless and less true.

I mean, seriously, America is a third-world nation? Noam hasn't traveled enough if he believes that, even if he was just talking about mass transit systems.

You should read the remainder of my posts, I pretty much explain in what context the phrase was used. Now what you say about people moving from jingoistic America worship to outright hostility of America. Well some people are going to take away a message of frak america, frak corporations, we're gonna live in a hippie commune. Well there is something called the sturgeon's law. Look it up. And yes those people are wrong.

The terms "n-world" were coined to describe nations' geopolitical status during the Cold War. The US and its allies were the First World. The Soviet Union (in modern times, this can be replaced with the Russia/China political partnership) and its allies comprised the Second World; and any nation that was nonaligned and thus did not qualify as either of the above were collectively the Third World. This was true regardless of how "poor" or "undeveloped" those nations were. Mexico, for instance, is a First World country; while Iran is a Second World country and Egypt is (at the moment) a Third World country. As many (but not all) small nations that have developed did so with the help of one of the superpowers, many Third World nations can be described as generally undeveloped - but that's not true of all of them and not a defining characteristic of "Third World".

However it came to pass that the US never focused on upgrading its rail transportation system, the fact that it didn't has no bearing on whether the US is a "Third World country"; the US by definition is the anchor of the First World. It has nothing to do with "patriotism" or "rage at someone denouncing the great US"; it's simply about what the terms First World and Third World actually mean. It would be like my saying, "we happen to be living on a pulsar, from the point of view of the amount of radio signals Earth emits." The word "pulsar" has a definition which excludes it from being used in this context.

Well we're quibbling over semantics here. The definition of third world has changes since it's inception back in the cold war. google "define:third world" and you will see many different definitions. Vernacular changes with time and the cold war has been over for the past twenty years, so it's not that much of a stretch that the definition of third world has taken on meaning outside it's original definition. As Chomksy's usage, well it's not to be taken literally, just like you can say that the movie Transformers 3 is pure crap, that phrase doesn't literally mean the movie is a small pile of excrement. It means the movie is bad in a way that reminds of of a glistening pile of fecal matter. So yea, people use metaphors to explain things.

 

[angrysoba]

I should have edited that, OK what I was trying to say was there is a rhetorical trick called appeal to authority, which states that an expert is an unquestionable authority on the subject and just by rank should have his message taken as fact. Of course that's a fallacy, but you should still listen to experts in a given field, and if you're going to be critical of one, at least do your do diligence and do some homework. The reason is an expert spends an inordinate amount of time on his specific topic, so if you as a layman are going to be critical you should at least be cognizant there might be a good reason for what this expert says so. That's all.

Okay, I will agree with you if you are saying that it is intellectually arrogant to dismiss Chomsky's whole worldview or philosophical system by simply ridiculing a quote that has been mined from a much larger talk. I think that happens too much with Chomsky's detractors. Nevertheless, it is too sweeping of you to imply that none of his critics have serious criticisms and merely engage in ignorant attacks.

Well this isn't a case of simple logic when you say US=Third Word Country. This is more of a point of view from an economic and social development front more than an wholesale devaluing the whole of nation as third world. And his exact words were "from the point of view of economic and social development the US is like a third world country."

See above for Chickmite and my criticisms of the term "Third World country". This is actually why I asked you if Chomsky is even factually right when it comes to calling the US "Third World" for any reason at all. It would only be correct in a literal sense if the US had been neutral during the Cold War. It's a bizarre slip for Chomsky to make.

Yes people attach all sorts of meanings to nation state and all that. All I am pointing out is that most labels are just shorthand for a more complicated reality. Lets look at a power structure that this particular label implies. There are military and gov't and economic institutions that make up the power structure of a country. These are systems which have a social contract with it's people to provide a service. But by being power structures they are of immense value to bureaucratic entrepreneurs who are looking to exploit the system because it affords them power. And this happens everywhere, but there are ways to stop this corruption or at least limit it. One is political activism and generally having strong media institutions that point out these exploits. Now Chomksy's point is that our institutions have been compromised to the point that you can now compare us to a third world country on this merit. Now you say that even chomsky wouldn't reduce a notion of nation state to simply a collection of greedy opportunists, well he would and has. He's an anarcho-syndicalist and has no
love for what the nation state is. And this all comes down to weather you share his particular political sensibilities. I don't fully for the record agree with him on this accord.

Well, if you say so, Chomsky thinks the nation state is merely a set of institutions made up of greedy opportunists. Okay, but where would he stand on such issues as independence movements for occupied countries. In some way it would seem to make a mockery of the distinction between occupied nations and any other nations as everyone would be in the same boat.

Well thats the funny thing, Europe is in a much better state than the US when it comes to this, and this is because they seem to be more educated and politically engaged than we are. As I mentioned before their political parties better reflect their populaces. The labor party is a good example of something that died in the early nineteen hundreds in the US, but thrives in Europe. So the working class has been disenfranchised here in the US for a long time. And in order for democracy to work the majority must have someone to represent their interests in the legislative institutions. The problem here is that US is more of a capitalist country than a democratic one. The real problem starts somewhere after the sixties where there was social and political upheaval, America used to be more politically active with a focus on local politics. But then political divide of the sixties happened and most local political organizations dissolved because of differences of opinion among the members. Ever since then the only organized(well seriously organized) group that votes in blocks and had an agenda is the religious right, that's why they have so much power with the republican establishment. So yes the kooks have out organized us. Well the AARP is also politically affluent, but that's pretty much it for the majority. By the way there is a book called Bowling Alone which is about this particular phenomenon of Americans loosing political interest and the effects of all that apathy.

By the way, I myself am not an American citizen. I am a British citizen who lives in Japan so I have some idea of what other developed countries are like and how enfranchised or disenfranchised people feel in those countries. In fact, you may be surprised at how much discontent there is in both countries with their political representatives and how "disenfranchised" people feel (I put that word in scare quotes because disenfranchised has sometimes come to mean not getting one's own way or being annoyed that few other people believe in their fringe politics). On the other hand there is vast amounts of political apathy in Japan where one party had been in power for an almost completely unbroken period of time since World War Two. A year or two ago the main opposition party won but no significant differences were discernible between the two. In the UK we now have a coalition of two parties which seem only cosmetically different from each other and almost completely indistinguishable from the Labour Party that was in power for about thirteen years. The US is really not that different. And as for Europeans and British being "more educated" or "politically active" I would like to know what evidence you give for that.

Now on the economic front things aren't much better. America's wages have stagnated for the past thirty years while corporate profits have skyrocketed. And even thought the US is the richest country in the world most of the wealth and growth for the past 30 years has been for the extremely wealthy, at the price of everyone else. And given that the political situation favors deep pockets this isn't going to change any time soon.

Is it true that the richer the rich get the poorer the poor will get? How do you think that living standards for most Americans compare with their living standards in the 1950's? Better or worse?

Well he's using hyperbole to assert that in practical terms both parties kowtow to the moneyed elite which happens to be business. While there are real differences between republicans and democrats I do feel the democrats give a lot of lip to liberal causes, but act like republicans lite when it comes actually looking at public liberal opinion and setting their agenda on that. They more kowtow to lobbyists than their democratic ideals.

Yes, there is a certain truth to this. But it is still hyperbolic.

PS how do you quote with the lighter colored boxes, I am unfamiliar with how to do that.

If you want to quote individual lines then highlight those lines and then press the speech bubble icon. It's to the right of the little picture of the mountain.

 

[Checkmite]

Well we're quibbling over semantics here. The definition of third world has changes since it's inception back in the cold war. google "define:third world" and you will see many different definitions. Vernacular changes with time and the cold war has been over for the past twenty years, so it's not that much of a stretch that the definition of third world has taken on meaning outside it's original definition. As Chomksy's usage, well it's not to be taken literally, just like you can say that the movie Transformers 3 is pure crap, that phrase doesn't literally mean the movie is a small pile of excrement. It means the movie is bad in a way that reminds of of a glistening pile of fecal matter. So yea, people use metaphors to explain things.

Even if we allow that he's using "third world" to expressly mean "an un- or underdeveloped country", he's still completely wrong because the example he gives to justify calling the US a "third world country" is so ridiculous. Are we really going to place the US in the same "economic and social development" category as nations that have no commuter rail system, or no rail service at all, simply because our fastest passenger trains can only go 150 mph? How does that make any sense whatsoever? And in any case, what value does "rail technology advancement" have as a metric of a country's overall economic or social health, if transportation needs are sufficiently met by other methods? Certainly, roads and airports rather than rails may not be the most cost effective in the long run, but they're still practically adequate - and since when does that qualify any country for "third world" status?

 

[Chaos]

The value of Noam Chomsky is that he gets young people off the reflexive, jingoistic support of America that is mindless. The negative is he replaces it with a reflexive anti-Americanism that is equally mindless and less true.

I mean, seriously, America is a third-world nation? Noam hasn't traveled enough if he believes that, even if he was just talking about mass transit systems.

Is the US a third-world nation?

No, not by any stretch of imagination.

But neither is the US half as perfect and great and flawless as its zombie patriot hordes claim, nor is it half as good as it could be if people decided to stop ignoring its flaws and start working towards fixing them.

The US is the only first-world nation whose citizens, by and large, are actually proud, and fiercely defensive, of having a completely (bleep)ed-up health "care" system, a political culture riddled with corruption and cronyism, a political "debate" that consists of very little more than mudslinging and raw hatred, a "justice" system that executes one innocent person after the other, an electoral system that is tamper-prone beyond belief and distorts the will of the electorate, and not to forget a multitude of brands of religious fanaticism whose adherents have more influence on politics and society than in any other allegedly secular nation. It is the only democracy that still starts one war after the other, the only democracy that still kills its own citizens, the only democracy that still uses torture...

Did I forget anything?

The US could be so great... but instead it chooses to wallow in its own mediocrity.

 

[Virus]

Is the US a third-world nation?

No, not by any stretch of imagination.

But neither is the US half as perfect and great and flawless as its zombie patriot hordes claim, nor is it half as good as it could be if people decided to stop ignoring its flaws and start working towards fixing them.

The US is the only first-world nation whose citizens, by and large, are actually proud, and fiercely defensive, of having a completely (bleep)ed-up health "care" system, a political culture riddled with corruption and cronyism, a political "debate" that consists of very little more than mudslinging and raw hatred, a "justice" system that executes one innocent person after the other, an electoral system that is tamper-prone beyond belief and distorts the will of the electorate, and not to forget a multitude of brands of religious fanaticism whose adherents have more influence on politics and society than in any other allegedly secular nation. It is the only democracy that still starts one war after the other, the only democracy that still kills its own citizens, the only democracy that still uses torture...

Did I forget anything?

The US could be so great... but instead it chooses to wallow in its own mediocrity.

Not hyperbolic enough.

 

[Chaos]

Not hyperbolic enough.

I could pull "Republicans murdered 100 million people. It´s right there in their manifesto that this is their expressed goal." out of my butt if that makes you feel better.

 

[Virus]

Just picking you up on two things;

Torture = Three Al-Qaeda terrorists that were involved with 9/11 had water poured up their nose.

Kills it's own citizens = Capital punishment of convinced mass murderers.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What's with all the chomsk hate all of a sudden?

 

[Beerina]

Max,

While I agree that for some posters Noam Chomsky is simply a hate figure and that declarations of hatred for Chomsky is better than an argument, it doesn't mean that you are making a sound point when you say, effectively, that Noam Chomsky can always counter any and every argument made against him because of his superior brain power and knowledge.

If one hates him, it's because it's a guy who spits out words that embolden angry men with guns to take my stuff.

Much like any socialist memetic political narratives.

 

[Virus]

starts one war after the other

Al-Qaeda started the War on Terror.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Well this an interesting topic. Back in the fifties there was a major push to modernize the US through either a highway system or a train transportation.
Both options were considered and the train system seemed a better economic alternative. Better meaning savings on gas and cheapness of travel overall a better system if you weight both systems side by side. Now the gas companies lobbied the train alternative out of existence because the highway system benefited them more. So it really comes down to if you're a civilian your interests are in having the train system, if you're an oil executive then your interests are obviously in the system that expends the most gas. So yea that's what it was.

Evidence? From my understanding, Eisenhower was primarily motivated after seeing the autobahns in Germany.

In At Ease [Eisenhower's autobiography], former President Eisenhower said:

The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.

He added:

This was one of the things that I felt deeply about, and I made a personal and absolute decision to see that the nation would benefit by it.

Because of his experiences, President Eisenhower fought hard to get Congress to pass the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.

My bolding. Source. And another.

It seems, rather, that what Chomsky (or you, if you are misreading him) has fallen into is the lazy argument of "the evil corporations did it." You also fail to mention the cost-effectiveness in building roads vs. trains - a mile of road is substantially cheaper than a mile of track. America in the 50's was much more rural and a highway system provides for a much more decentralized system than rail. This goes back to cost-effectiveness, but when you have large populations in rural areas, building roads to connect them makes traveling between remote areas and/or to cities is a much more efficient system than building rail lines to every podunk town. So no, that's not "what it was."

---

So given that context one can understand Chomsky's disdain with our of lack proper train system development is a little more than just nitpicking for douchebags sake.

To use the term "third-world" when describing rail systems is inflammatory and a gross mis-characterization of the word used to make a nitpicky point by a douchebag. Keeping in mind that I say this, not out of jingoistic fervor or a love for US "power structures", but rather because it is a sloppy analysis which ignores nuance in favor of shock value.

 

[IchabodPlain]

What's with all the chomsk hate all of a sudden?

A coming of age?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Al-Qaeda started the War on Terror.

Well, no, they declared a war with the slightly less jazzy name of: 'World Islamic Front for Combat Against the Jews and Crusaders'.

 

[BobHaulk]

Yeah, Chomsky's the one who looks out of touch, not that indefatigable warmonger Hitchens.

Looks like you'll be on the wrong side of history then. You,chomsky and your hero gorgeous George Galloway on the side of the islamo fascists, nice.

 

[Checkmite]

Is the US a third-world nation?

No, not by any stretch of imagination.

But neither is the US half as perfect and great and flawless as its zombie patriot hordes claim...

Those people aren't here right now. I have yet to see anyone in any of these Chomsky threads arguing that Chomsky is wrong "because America is undeniably awesome in every possible way and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid". Chomsky is wrong because his logic is hung on the opposite extreme - that "America is undeniably horrible in every possible way and anyone who thinks otherwise is a mindless nationalistic zealot".

 

[portlandatheist]

Lets remember that Chomskie's critique of the US goes far beyond calling it a third world nation, he also calls the US a dictatorship among other critiques.
There are many reasonable criticisms that Chomsky can make about US policy and we could have an honest conversation about how to improve US democracy, but the over the top hyperbole and rhetoric makes it difficult to talk intelligently about it. Lets talk like normal people about the railway infrastructure, the electoral college system, etc without using such absurd adjectives such as "dictatorship" and "third world country" and so on. It's these over the top terms that discredits Chomsky's credibility. Apartheid anyone?

 

[Chaos]

Those people aren't here right now. I have yet to see anyone in any of these Chomsky threads arguing that Chomsky is wrong "because America is undeniably awesome in every possible way and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid". Chomsky is wrong because his logic is hung on the opposite extreme - that "America is undeniably horrible in every possible way and anyone who thinks otherwise is a mindless nationalistic zealot".

I assume, then, that you have never read even a single post by the resident right-wingers in response to anyone criticizing the US in any way?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Can someone direct me to Chomsky vs Hitchens?

Was that a debate (hope, hope) or an article?

 

[Gazpacho]

Lets remember that Chomskie's critique of the US goes far beyond calling it a third world nation, he also calls the US a dictatorship among other critiques.

He's said that dictators would admire the degree of ruling-class control over political discourse in the US. Can you cite where he's called the US a dictatorship?