Noam on stuff

[hgc]

Using terms like "Noam's palestinian overlords" is so anti-intelligent, it's the equivalent of sh*tting all over the Enlightenment, in my opinion.

Even worse, it makes Jesus cry.

 

[Merko]

He concluded that our invasion of Afghanistan would result in genocide. He also concluded at the time that the Khmer Rouge were NOT engaged in genocide.

Quotes, please. I don't consider the wielding of the word 'genocide' to be 'practical policy'. Regarding the invasion of Afghanistan, practical policy would be things like the US request to Pakistan to seal off the border against refugees, as well as stopping food deliveries to Afghanistan, which Chomsky protested. Not just him, every NGO present in Afghanistan was raising this alarm. And I agreed. Yes, the US and other countries subsequently sent relief. Wonderful! That is also practical policy.

What do you think would have happened if no one (Chomsky, the NGO's, etc) had warned about the risk of mass famine in Afghanistan? Amartya Sen argues that mass starvation doesn't happen in democracies. Afghanistan was not a democracy, but its invaders were. I think we can once again thank democracy - and critics including Chomsky - for averting another starvation.

 

[EGarrett]

I didn't really mean it to be taken that way, but if you prefer to do so then my response just gets rephrased as "it's possible A is just the kind of person that will always do things that B will criticise, but some other person in A's position might do something else that B would not criticise".

I still think you're implying alternate choices whereas the original problem doesn't seem to allow for them.

Maybe it's just the way I read it...but to me it seemed to imply that in any given situation, if A does something (which covers any possible action), B criticizes, and if A does not do something (which covers anything else), B will criticize.

I understand what you were trying to say. My point is that assuming that whatever the US government will do will attract criticism regardless of what it is it does, can just be a way of plugging your ears to criticism that is in fact justified.

Understood.

I also think that it's such an extreme position it's trivially falsifiable. Unless Noam Chomsky criticised the US government for helping people in Oceania after the recent tsunami, for example, then it's just not true Noam Chomsky always criticises the US government for whatever it does no matter what.

If so you would have to reformulate your claim into something like "Chomsky always criticises the US government when it starts a war" or something like that.

I didn't mean to imply that Chomsky was the one who always criticizes, I meant to point out that Chomsky is fond of the tactic of criticizing the US for ignoring others criticism when making decisions. That to me seems fallacious because the US always faces criticism and must make decisions based on it's own intelligence and always ignore whoever happens to be berating them at the moment. That's just the reality of being the world superpower.

 

[TriangleMan]

Quotes, please.

Can't help with Afghanistan but here's a Cambodia quote since it's in the book I'm reading now. From Understanding Power, softcover 2003 UK edition, pg 92, emphasis in original:

Well, look, the business about "genocide" you've got to be a little careful about. Pol Pot was obviously a major mass murderer, but it's not clear that Pol Pot killed very many more poeple - or even more people - than the United States killed in Cambodia in the first half of the 1970s. We only talk about "genocide" when other people do the killing.

He continues on to discuss estimates on the number of deaths caused by the United States compared to the Khemr Rouge.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Can't help with Afghanistan but here's a Cambodia quote since it's in the book I'm reading now. From Understanding Power, softcover 2003 UK edition, pg 92, emphasis in original:

He continues on to discuss estimates on the number of deaths caused by the United States compared to the Khemr Rouge.

"Caused." Uh huh, directly or indirectly? By what agency? By what cause and effect chain?

PS, how's the weather in Qatar?

DR

 

[TriangleMan]

"Caused." Uh huh, directly or indirectly? By what agency? By what cause and effect chain?

Let's see . . . he notes bombing and invasion starting around 1969, and supporting anti-Parliamentary forces until 1975, which decimated agricultural production even before Pol Pot took over.

key quote, empasis in original:

So while the number of deaths you should attribute to the United States during the Pol Pot period isn't a simple calculation to make, obviously it's a lot - when you wipe out a country's agricultural system and drive a million people out of their homes and into a city as refugees, yeah, a lot of people are going to die. And the responsibility for their deaths is not with the regime that took over afterwards, it's with the people who made it that way.

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger!

PS, how's the weather in Qatar?

Chilly, if you can believe it. 13 degrees C and no central heating in my apartment. I never thought I'd wish it would get warmer here.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Let's see . . . he notes bombing and invasion starting around 1969, and supporting anti-Parliamentary forces until 1975, which decimated agricultural production even before Pol Pot took over.

key quote, empasis in original:


Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger!


Chilly, if you can believe it. 13 degrees C and no central heating in my apartment. I never thought I'd wish it would get warmer here.

Thanks for the details, and all I can say about 13 deg C in Qatar is

???? I am sure you'll manage to weather the storm.

DR

 

[davefoc]

There is a strong division by the participants in this forum on the issue of US foreign policy. The issue of how one feels about Chomsky is a key indicator of that. I have made an attempt to be an objective observer of the nature of this division, but is difficult because I am clearly a partisan and have strong views that place me on the left of this divide.

This division is interesting in that it is probably the area of strongest disagreement on the board between definable camps. No other set of issues in the politics section divide the forum into such well defined groups.

It seems like some basic personality characteristics may underlie the creation of this divide. But I can't really support this notion with any argument.

I am sitting here and trying to devise words to characterize the views of the people in each of the camps but I don't seem to be able to. Each attempt leads to descriptions that seem more driven by my biases than objective observation. One group seems much more open to the possibility that American foreign policy is often driven far more by self interest (and not always even national interest) than the other group. Is that because one group is so biased by patriotic fantasies that they can't see the truth or is that because the other group is so driven by the need for self criticism that they don't recognize the real world need to work for one's own self interest even if the actions aren't pristinely ethical?

 

[Merko]

Can't help with Afghanistan but here's a Cambodia quote since it's in the book I'm reading now. From Understanding Power, softcover 2003 UK edition, pg 92, emphasis in original:

He continues on to discuss estimates on the number of deaths caused by the United States compared to the Khemr Rouge.

Sounds fair enough. You should know, that the vast majority of the people killed by the Khmer Rouge died of starvation. This was a result of their bizarre anti-urban campaign, driving people out into the rural areas where they did not have the skills or equipment to survive.

Prior US bombings of the area did indeed kill a very significant number of people directly, as well as causing similar indirect deaths.

While it is important to understand the makeup of Khmer Rouge victims in order to understand their history and ideology, of course it doesn't free them from responsibility for the indirect deaths, which were clearly predictable (to anyone not blinded by Khmer Rouge ideology). However, the same goes for indirect deaths by US bombings.

As far as practical policy goes, I cannot see Chomsky offering any sort of support for the Khmer Rouge. I recall him saying that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia that eventually drove the Khmer Rouge from power was in fact a (rare) justifiable intervention. I think he puts the WWII US/allied invasion of France in the same category of justifiable interventions.

 

[Merko]

One group seems much more open to the possibility that American foreign policy is often driven far more by self interest (and not always even national interest) than the other group. Is that because one group is so biased by patriotic fantasies that they can't see the truth or is that because the other group is so driven by the need for self criticism that they don't recognize the real world need to work for one's own self interest even if the actions aren't pristinely ethical?

Well, as a non-American, I must add that of course there is also the possibility of "anti-americanism", or non-American nationalistic feelings that go contrary to the US.

Personally, though I'm often critical of US foreign policy, I do not complain that the US foreign policy is guided by self interest. I think it is frequently guided too little by self-interest, and too often either guided by special interests or marred by short-sightedness and unability to foresee consequences of some action or lack thereof. However, US foreign policy debate seems to me to be more openly concerned with self-interest compared to similar debate in Europe. For this reason, I think the US debate is more fruitful and clarifying.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It seems like some basic personality characteristics may underlie the creation of this divide. But I can't really support this notion with any argument.

I am sitting here and trying to devise words to characterize the views of the people in each of the camps but I don't seem to be able to. Each attempt leads to descriptions that seem more driven by my biases than objective observation. One group seems much more open to the possibility that American foreign policy is often driven far more by self interest (and not always even national interest) than the other group. Is that because one group is so biased by patriotic fantasies that they can't see the truth or is that because the other group is so driven by the need for self criticism that they don't recognize the real world need to work for one's own self interest even if the actions aren't pristinely ethical?

Chomsky evokes empathetic responses in pretentious iconoclasts.

He tends to get eye rolls from people who consider themselves "realists" on the matter of policy and government.

I don't think your posited Chomsky litmus test a good stand alone measure, but I think your are on to something.

It seems that Noam Chomsky appeals more strongly to Libertarians than most other self defined groups. Note that he also has a lot of fans among WN's and CT'ists. Your "patriotic fantasy" strawman is, unfortunately, a case of your bias coloring an otherwise insightful post.

Group identity is a natural human behavior, for better and worse.

DR

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

As far as practical policy goes, I cannot see Chomsky offering any sort of support for the Khmer Rouge. I recall him saying that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia that eventually drove the Khmer Rouge from power was in fact a (rare) justifiable intervention. I think he puts the WWII US/allied invasion of France in the same category of justifiable interventions.

He supported the Khmer Rouge before word got out about what they were actually up to, and publicly expressed skepticism about initial reports of genocide.

He changed his mind when more evidence emerged.

 

[davefoc]

Personally, though I'm often critical of US foreign policy, I do not complain that the US foreign policy is guided by self interest. I think it is frequently guided too little by self-interest, and too often either guided by special interests or marred by short-sightedness and unability to foresee consequences of some action or lack thereof.

Actually, I agree with this completely. When I said self interest I was referring to the self interest of the people implementing the policy. This was dealt with in another thread but I believe that American Israel/Palestinain policy is absolutely not in the national interest. I also think it's not in the Israeli interest but that is less clear. It is in the perceived self interest of the people that enable and implement the policy.

 

[Merko]

He supported the Khmer Rouge before word got out about what they were actually up to, and publicly expressed skepticism about initial reports of genocide.

He changed his mind when more evidence emerged.

Quotes of him supporting the Khmer Rouge at any point? Given his overall political stance, it seems unlikely to me that he would have found their ideology appealing. But maybe he changed his ideology? I wouldn't know. I recall that Bertrand Russell wrote that he supported the (second) Boer war because at that time he was still taken in with nationalism. At the time that war ended, he was 30, so not exactly a youth.

 

[Skeptic]

Look, it's simple. Chomsky is suffering from post-Marxism withdrawal.

In the 19th century, Marxists were all convinced the capitalist countries only enjoy a high standard of living because because they exploit their workers. But workers in capitalist countries obviously lived far better than workers in communist countries.

So Marxists revised their theory and said the capitalist countries only enjoy a high standard of living because they exploit workers in other countries through colonialism and imperialism. But colonialism ended and the standard of living in capitalist countries remained high, while that in the far more colonialist and imperialist USSR remained low.

So now Marxists say capitalist countries have a high standard of living is because they exploit other countries through economic imperialism (a contradiction in terms, by the way). Again the exact opposite is the case: just look at the standard of living in "exploited" Taiwan vs. "liberated" North Korea.

Chomsky's views are really the same old arguments from the mid-19th century about how capitalism is an unsustainable system of exploitation, only with its "victims" being changed every fifty years or so--whenever capitalism fails to collapse and its "victims" fail to rebel, and even prosper.

"Capitalists" for Chomsky are what "Jews" are for some people: it doesn't matter what the capitalists do, they're always to blame for all the trouble in the world through their nefarious, global conspiracy against "the people".

 

[jimtron]

In the 19th century, Marxists were all convinced the capitalist countries only enjoy a high standard of living because because they exploit their workers. The exact opposite turned out to be the case: workers in capitalist countries live far better than workers in communist countries.

I don't see how that's the exact opposite. Isn't it possible that workers in capitalist countries live better than those in communist countries, AND get exploited in their own? If you're better off than someone else, does that mean you can't be exploited?

 

[Merko]

I've been trying to search the internet for Chomsky's supposed support of the Khmer Rouge, and while it seems to be the subject of several books, I find little. The most 'incriminating' seems to be a quote where Chomsky speculates that the KR had considerable rural support because of their anti-feudal stance. This appears like a sensible theory to me. I'm not particularly impressed with theories that posit "official bad guys" as being controlled by original evil, their actions being unexplainable, and that only evil people could ever have supported them and only for evil reasons. However, clearly some people are very ready to classify anyone trying to understand such mechanisms as "defenders" of said bad guys.

There's also quotes of Chomsky criticising details of a 1977 book on the Khmer Rouge genocide, but these quotes clearly show that Chomsky is taking the overall message of the book very seriously, while being critical of some of the estimates made and the treatment of some sources. There doesn't seem to be any denial of the genocide, much less any support for the KR. If Chomsky's message was that the book's accusations were overwhelmingly false, then surely there should be quotes supporting that, rather than him saying that the book was "serious and worth reading".

Then there are also some quotes from before the KR takeover where Chomsky expresses his hopes for a positive development in Cambodia. Although none of these quotes mention the KR, some Chomsky critics seem to argue that he was in fact referring to them, but they seem to offer no evidence for this.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]

 

[Merko]

Look, it's simple. Chomsky is suffering from post-Marxism withdrawal.

Could you offer any evidence that Chomsky was ever a Marxist? I have seen some quote from him saying that Marx' writings offer little of interest, or something along those lines.

Although left-libertarians like Chomsky mainly focus their criticism on Leninism (rightly, I would say, but I'm a left-libertarian myself), this does not mean that they are supportive of Marxism. Personally, I think Marx had important contributions, not least of which would be the idea of a scientific approach to politics. Of course, the Marxists turned this idea completely upside down by applying the wide-spread popular misconception that "scientific" equals "eternally true". Clearly, what Marx meant was that politics should be driven by careful examination of facts. That Marx did spend enormous efforts researching facts and statistics does of course not mean that his theories hold, but the approach itself is laudable.

 

[Dave1001]

Look, it's simple.

uh-oh.

 

[Dave1001]

I'm not particularly impressed with theories that posit "official bad guys" as being controlled by original evil, their actions being unexplainable, and that only evil people could ever have supported them and only for evil reasons. However, clearly some people are very ready to classify anyone trying to understand such mechanisms as "defenders" of said bad guys.

That's how I would divide the 2 groups of posters up, more or less. The "look, it's simple" contingent, and (as represented by this quoted post), the "look, it may not be simple" contingent.