Is Noam Chomsky a good source?

[NWO Sentryman]

NWO Sentryman: May I ask why you started this thread? Are you sincerely wondering if Chomsky is a good source on the Cold War, or do you already have an opinion of his views?

sorry about that. I was discussing a particular book, not Chomsky in general.

i have some idea, when i tried to read Rethinking Camelot. Very painful stuff.

But i must question the credibility of thirdworldtraveler, with someone like John Stockwell, who is known for his JFK woo, as well as the apologia for Milosevic.

Let us end this ill-conceived thread here.

 

[jimtron]

sorry about that. I was discussing a particular book, not Chomsky in general.

i have some idea, when i tried to read Rethinking Camelot. Very painful stuff.

But i must question the credibility of thirdworldtraveler, with someone like John Stockwell, who is known for his JFK woo, as well as the apologia for Milosevic.

Let us end this ill-conceived thread here.

No need to apologize; I was just curious about what you were getting at.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

No need to apologize; I was just curious about what you were getting at.

I was just wondering if Chomsky was a credible source. My history teacher said he should be taken with a pinch of Salt.

Especially with Pol Pot, Milosevic and whatnot.

 

[Childlike Empress]

His universal grammar - in their opinion, and from what I know of it, I'd agree - is not a predictive theory, but rather a post-hoc rationalisation. That is, it's simply a model patterned to fit the data, without any explanatory power.

Similar criticism can be found in the Wikipedia article on the subject.

His main achievement in science is the Chomsky hierarchy. You can trust this man with logic and formal things like sourcing his claims. That's why he's so respected even by people who don't share his conclusions.

William F. Buckley interviewed him in 1969 when he was speaking out against the vietnam war. Hilarious:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[Jontg]

I would at least point out that Communism was never a threat. Communism has never existed--the moment Lenin and company deviated from Marx's original conception of a slow, natural transition to Socialism by advocating and ultimately instigating revolution, they ceased to be Communists, as has every other so-called "Communist revolutionary" since then. What the first part of that revolution created could still have been called a Socialist government--but that system was destroyed within weeks by further violent uprisings, and in the end Russia wound up with Stalin, and the exact opposite of Communism: a totalitarian dictatorship, where the elite lived in mansions and the workers struggled to "share" the scraps that were left. Like with every system that came before it, the hoarders and misers of the world ruined it for everyone else; there's a reason why we used to forbid that sort of thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, It was about preventing Communism from Spreading. The President and the Press

I am citing World War 2 behind Closed Doors By Laurence Rees, the Venona Files, Oleg Kalugin, Ion Pacepa, the Mitrokhin Archive etc.

You do realise what the Red Terror was in Russia (20 million dead, including the Holodomor between 1931 and 1941).

Communism was a real threat. The Korean war was a conspiracy involving Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung.

It was very polarised, but there were shades of grey with the cloak-and-dagger (Contras, Gladio, AJAX etc.)

The Forced Famines in China that left 40 million dead: Mao the unknown story (1958-1961)

If US Intervention Prevented a Stalin or Mao from coming to power, it improved everyone's lives.

Wasn't henry Ford a Nazi BTW?

Thirdworldtraveler is a joke BTW, with my woo level heading off the Scale. Give me one photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam and i will give you 1 of Che and Mao.

Edward S Herman? The same guy that runs the Srebrenica group, the biggest Genocide deniers since David Irving?

John wayne Version? Check out the declassified Soviet documents as well as Ion Mihai Pacepa, the Highest ranking eastern Bloc defector. Kalugin is also good.

Your distortions are so predictable, NWO. It's tiring addressing them over and over. Nothing I say is likely to open your eyes to a different view of the world, and I have already thoroughly examined the US foreign policy interventions in the third world over my adult lifetime. In post after post you spout opinion and very little, if any, actual evidence supporting your view. And the evidence you have posted is not convincing against my lifetime of experience.

For example, you accused TWT of being a source which never cited authors. Yet every article I've linked to in these threads has had an identified author. Your claim TWT is not a reliable web source fails.


The Wiki article on Henry Ford^WP covers the spectrum. Nothing there suggest he was a Nazi. It cites Hitler admiring Ford. The Wiki article has a long discussion about Ford's antiSemitism. None of that has anything to do with what I said. I said Ford was pro-capitalism yet against many of the things the federal government supported at the time. Your Ford ad hom fails.


One need merely glance at Political commentaries by Edward S. Herman to see why you would use ad homs to attack him. Clearly he doesn't see the 'red threat' as you do.

This opinion piece from Herman, GENOCIDE INFLATION IS THE REAL HUMAN RIGHTS THREAT, makes many good points which I suspect you are unable to see through your dislike of his view. The evidence of this is your false accusation Herman is a holocaust denier. Here are Herman's own words:

Those denying this horrendous set of real events......

I take it you missed that sentence or any equivalent of it in your anger that Herman would point out cases of genocide either inflated or ignored based on what the American government felt was in America's best interest. Many Israelis, for example, refuse to believe their treatment of the Palestinians is part of the problem. Herman points out such things as the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in detail.

Your claim Herman is a holocaust denier fails.


Since I have not said the Soviets posed no threat to the US, I don't see why I need to confirm my view they did. Perhaps you could generalize a bit less about my opinions in this discussion. You are generalizing incorrectly.



-

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would at least point out that Communism was never a threat. Communism has never existed--the moment Lenin and company deviated from Marx's original conception of a slow, natural transition to Socialism by advocating and ultimately instigating revolution, they ceased to be Communists, as has every other so-called "Communist revolutionary" since then. What the first part of that revolution created could still have been called a Socialist government--but that system was destroyed within weeks by further violent uprisings, and in the end Russia wound up with Stalin, and the exact opposite of Communism: a totalitarian dictatorship, where the elite lived in mansions and the workers struggled to "share" the scraps that were left. Like with every system that came before it, the hoarders and misers of the world ruined it for everyone else; there's a reason why we used to forbid that sort of thing.

While this sounds a bit pedantic, it actually makes a good point. Calling something a terrorist or communist threat turns a complex issue into an oversimplified enemy. These are the kind of generalizations used specifically to stop people from thinking about the details and instead convince people to blindly follow a leader.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since NWO has said this was an ill conceived thread he would choose to end, I would like to add a related sidetrack about Third World Traveler, the site NWO has such contempt for.

Here is their main page. As you can see, it is an incredibly extensive site with hundreds of sources and thousands of entries. Of course in all that one cannot expect every article to be vetted and valid. But as a source of information, there is an incredible wealth of it here.

To dismiss TWT as nothing but leftest propaganda or whatever it is NWO believes the site to be is ignorant, absurd, and frankly, the sign of someone only interested in reading material that confirms what they already believe.



-

 

[theprestige]

I would at least point out that Communism was never a threat. Communism has never existed--the moment Lenin and company deviated from Marx's original conception of a slow, natural transition to Socialism by advocating and ultimately instigating revolution, they ceased to be Communists, as has every other so-called "Communist revolutionary" since then. What the first part of that revolution created could still have been called a Socialist government--but that system was destroyed within weeks by further violent uprisings, and in the end Russia wound up with Stalin, and the exact opposite of Communism: a totalitarian dictatorship, where the elite lived in mansions and the workers struggled to "share" the scraps that were left. Like with every system that came before it, the hoarders and misers of the world ruined it for everyone else; there's a reason why we used to forbid that sort of thing.

While this sounds a bit pedantic, it actually makes a good point. Calling something a terrorist or communist threat turns a complex issue into an oversimplified enemy. These are the kind of generalizations used specifically to stop people from thinking about the details and instead convince people to blindly follow a leader.

I'm sorry, but I think it's Jontg that's oversimplifying.

I mean, wasn't Lenin's whole argument that Communism--properly understood--could, in fact, be "jump-started" by the methods he proposed? Hundreds of thousands of self-proclaimed Communists worldwide understood Leninism to be a valid and viable form of Communism. You can't just proclaim that because it wasn't Marxist fundamentalism, it wasn't Communism, or that it wasn't a threat (Nor Stalinism, nor Maoism, etc.).

The Marxist-Leninist debate has been going on for decades, and is far too complex and nuanced for you to wave it away with a twitch of your Internet discussion forum wand. Especially since, for the purposes of this particular discussion forum, it doesn't matter anyway. It's not like anybody besides hardcore students of socialist theory care about which Communist pundits are canon and which aren't. That's the kind of thing that would really only matter on a Communist fanfic forum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sorry, but I think it's Jontg that's oversimplifying.

I mean, wasn't Lenin's whole argument that Communism--properly understood--could, in fact, be "jump-started" by the methods he proposed? Hundreds of thousands of self-proclaimed Communists worldwide understood Leninism to be a valid and viable form of Communism. You can't just proclaim that because it wasn't Marxist fundamentalism, it wasn't Communism, or that it wasn't a threat (Nor Stalinism, nor Maoism, etc.).

The Marxist-Leninist debate has been going on for decades, and is far too complex and nuanced for you to wave it away with a twitch of your Internet discussion forum wand. Especially since, for the purposes of this particular discussion forum, it doesn't matter anyway. It's not like anybody besides hardcore students of socialist theory care about which Communist pundits are canon and which aren't. That's the kind of thing that would really only matter on a Communist fanfic forum.

I am not saying, and I don't believe Jontg was either, that communism is a wonderful economic system the world should adopt. I don't happen to believe human nature fits well with a communist economic system.

But it's nonsense that communism or terrorism are bogeymen. One is an economic system and one is a technique. Russia (then) and Al Qaeda (now) are led by men who pose a threat to the US. Claiming we are fighting terrorists and commies is a propaganda technique used as a means to stop people from thinking about the details and blindly following the leader. By the same token, calling the US, the Great Satan, serves the same purpose.

 

[quarky]

Chomsky is a good source.

 

[Brainster]

Chomsky is a good source if you're on the far left of the political spectrum, or trying to impress a professor who is located there.

His biggest failure was his attempt to deny the Killing Fields of Cambodia; of course after the fact he claimed that he was just criticizing the media for giving credibility to those who fled the regime and reported on the atrocities ongoing there.

On the other hand, he has been terrific on the 9-11 Troofers.

 

[whatnot]

I was an undergrad fan of NC's political critiques, less so nowadays. He's been famously right on things like Indochina, Nicaragua, and E. Timor. But IMO he was fatally wrong about Cambodia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan. I stopped paying attention to him after reading Samantha Powers' "A Problem From Hell" and his faceoff with Hitchens in the Nation online in the months after 9/11.

Actually, truther Kevin Barrett posted a longish email thread between himself and Chomsky a while back, it's a pisser. Sadly, it's MIA in the wake of Barrett's abortive run for elected office. Not sure why Barrett would want to publicize it; when Chomsky thinks you're paranoid, you might want to get a neuropsych eval.

 

[jimtron]

Chomsky is a good source if you're on the far left of the political spectrum, or trying to impress a professor who is located there.

His biggest failure was his attempt to deny the Killing Fields of Cambodia; of course after the fact he claimed that he was just criticizing the media for giving credibility to those who fled the regime and reported on the atrocities ongoing there.

On the other hand, he has been terrific on the 9-11 Troofers.

Could you provide a source for him denying the killing fields of Cambodia?

 

[Pardalis]

On the other hand, he has been terrific on the 9-11 Troofers.

9/11 conspiracy theories are so patently false and outrageous, it's the least he could do.

 

[jimtron]

Chomsky answers readers' questions in the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/noam-chomsky-you-ask-the-questions-413678.html

 

[NWO Sentryman]

If communism was not a threat then why were communist parties infiltrating the US Government. Declassified documents show that communist agents were successful in infiltrating the State department. Why did they adhere to the ten planks of communism (abolition of private property, central planning etc.), and why did you put the words cold war in inverted commas?

saying they weren't true communists just moves the goalposts.

I never said TWT didn't cite sources. I say that it's sources are unreliable.

It also gives outrageous claims such as Chiang Kai shek and Pinochet being comparable to pol pot, and America being in controll of Saddam when in reality he was a soviet client. The Stockholm International peace research institute concludes that Saddam received 57% of his hardware from the Soviet Union, with France ocntributing 13% and China contributing 12% with the Warsaw Pact 11% and America supplying less than 1%.

Let us look at some contributors to third world traveler shall we:

"William Blum" The same guy who is on the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic, and also wrote apologia for Stalin.

"Edward Herman" Khmer rouge and Bosnian Serb apologist. I never said he was a Holocaust denier. I said he was a srebrenica denier.

http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/Herman-FPIF.htm

"John Stockwell": Very unreliable source. Said Korea and Vietnam were "covert wars" as well as pearl harbour being staged.

"Philip Agee" Pacepa and Kalugin agree he's a traitor as well as Mitrokhin

Pilger: Denies genocide in Kosovo.

Fisk: got beaten up by Afghans and said "If i was one of them, i'd have beaten me". Possible Twoofer.

"howard Zinn" said Maoist China was great

"ahundati Roy": condoned the 9/11 attacks in a very wardish manner

"Paul Craig Roberts": Twoofer and anti-semite

I stopped reading when i saw the "New World Order" busston

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Could you provide a source for him denying the killing fields of Cambodia?

From Jimtron's link above for those not bothering to seek out the answer to this question he asked Brainster:

Do you regret mocking the accounts of refugees fleeing Pol Pot's Cambodia? LIJIA FREEMAN, NEW YORK

[Chomsky:] The closest approximation to this ludicrous charge is that Edward Herman and I cited the best-informed sources then available on Cambodia, State Department intelligence and François Ponchaud, who made the familiar point that testimony of refugees must be treated with caution. I certainly do not regret that. The record of deceit on this topic is huge. It has all been refuted, point by point, many times. This is one illustration of an interesting feature of intellectual culture. Periodically, there are atrocities that we can blame on official enemies - what Herman calls "nefarious atrocities", unlike those for which we share responsibility and can therefore easily mitigate or terminate. The latter are regularly downplayed or suppressed. The nefarious atrocities regularly elicit religious fervour, dramatic posturing, baseless claims to inflate them as much as possible - and fury if anyone does not blindly join the parade, but seeks to determine the truth, cites the most reputable authorities, and exposes the innumerable fabrications. The common reaction to such treachery is an impressive torrent of deceit. There is an instructive record, quite well documented in many cases. The reasons are not hard to explain. The topic should be pursued systematically, but that is unlikely, obviously.

Just like NWO doesn't hear the facts, he hears his stereotyped images of people who disagree with him, it would appear Brainster has a similar hearing/reading deficit.



Chomsky does use a couple pronouns here that for a guy whose area of study was linguistics, are surprisingly grammatically incorrect and leave the answer open to some confusion in interpretation:

"The record of deceit on this topic is huge. It has all been refuted, point by point, many times. This is one illustration of an interesting feature of intellectual culture. "

Pronouns like these are supposed to refer to the last relevant noun preceding the pronoun. It isn't clear here if "this topic" refers to "refugees' testimony must be treated with caution", the killing fields, or, the charge against Chomsky the questioner asks about.

But since Chomsky clearly states in the first sentence that the claim he ever denied the killing fields is a "ludicrous charge", we can rule out the pronouns of confusion here referring to deceit that the killing fields occurred. And that is what Brainster claims Chomsky said.

 

[Brainster]

Could you provide a source for him denying the killing fields of Cambodia?

Start here, which happens to be the first Google search result for Chomsky and Cambodia. Again, Chomsky claims he was making media criticisms, but the effect was the same as those who criticize legitimate books about the Holocaust.

ETA: For example consider this couple that Chomsky and Hermann quote in an infamous article in the Nation:

Regarding the evacuation of Phnom Penh, Chomsky and Herman devote several pages to an account written by Shane Tarr, a New Zealander, and Chou Meng, his Khmer wife. The Tarrs originally left Phnom Penh in the evacuation, then returned to Phnom Penh and were confined to the French embassy along with the other foreigners. Devout communists, the Tarrs claimed to have seen "'no organised executions, massacres, or the results of such like.'" The evacuation, they claim, was "'slow and well-organized,'" and "'The aged and the ill were not expected to join in the march. We saw very few who were old or sick on the road; those that we met elsewhere told us that the revolutionary organisation catered for their needs.'"(79)

Read the passages after that for why those people were not considered reliable sources.

Now I will admit that there is a difference between Holocaust Denial in 1944 and Holocaust Denial in 2009, just as there is a difference between denying the Killing Fields in 1976 and in 2009. One is a mistake (possibly honest), the other clearly implies more than the usual crankdom. Are there any more Killing Fields deniers?

I'm not accusing him of being the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier; that would be unfair. He was wrong, terribly wrong, and worse, he was wrong in a way that obviously suited his confirmation bias. I doubt the American people would have been inclined to any sort of intervention in Cambodia even if he had been right and strident about the Killing Fields, just as knowledge of the Holocaust going on in the concentration camps would not have made the Allies fight any harder (they could not have). So it's not like he changed history.

But he was wrong.

 

[Jontg]

Yes, Lenin tried to argue that. And he was wrong. Communism can't work if it's achieved by violent revolution--people's minds are still stuck in a Capitalist worldview, and in all likelihood the leaders of the revolution will just become the new ruling class rather than setting up a proper, democratic government. And in Russia's case, that's exactly what happened; Stalin and his cohorts lived in ivory towers while the proletariat scrabbled over the crumbs that were left--and at the urging of Stalinist propaganda, they even blamed those among themselves who happened to have a goat or two to their names for their state of privation, just as the modern American is convinced that Socialism would consist of taking their hard-earned money and giving it to worthless bums.
Communism is not a goal, or an ideology--it is the end product of the natural, inevitable evolution of society from feudalism to democracy, from self-interest to altruism, from barbarism to enlightenment. If it has to be forced on people, they're not ready for it yet.