my problem with Chomsky
I have trouble taking Noam Chomsky seriously, at least
in terms of his polital views. He's very tough on the U.S. and Europe,
which I think is fine, but he's very soft on governments like
Venezuela's, which have a terrible record on human rights. I'd applaud
him if he were consistent and demanded respect from all governments
towards their citizens and those of other nations, but unfortunately
he's very biased. Yes, he once asked Chavez in a letter to release Maria
Lourdes Afiuni, a Venezuelan political prisoner who spent several years
in jail without ever receiving a trial. (Her health deteriorated and
she claims to have been raped in prison.) But Chomsky was so nice in his
letter to his buddy Chavez. I wish he showed the same kind of fierce
indignation that he's so famous for when addressing Chavez and the
current government of Maduro, for example. No, apart from that letter,
he's only showed enthusiastic support for their brutish regime, which I
find very disappointing.
Venezuela is on the verge of total collapse, with one of the worst crime rates in the world, widespread corruption, an economy in shambles, its 50% inflation the highest in the hemisphere... Its abusive government artificially keeps a grip on all three branches of the government and disregards its own tailor-made Constitution. It's on its way to becoming the new Zimbabwe. But it's all ok with Chomsky, because Venezuela is not the U.S. or Europe. Obviously, the same rules don't apply to everyone. It's sad.
Venezuela is on the verge of total collapse, with one of the worst crime rates in the world, widespread corruption, an economy in shambles, its 50% inflation the highest in the hemisphere... Its abusive government artificially keeps a grip on all three branches of the government and disregards its own tailor-made Constitution. It's on its way to becoming the new Zimbabwe. But it's all ok with Chomsky, because Venezuela is not the U.S. or Europe. Obviously, the same rules don't apply to everyone. It's sad.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Google "venezuela gdp". I'm sorry to break it to you
but what you see on CNN and FOX is not what's really happening in the
world. Chavez might be anything but he brought the oil back in the hands
of the poeple and Venezuela is walking slowly on the path to recovery,
despite best efforts from Washington to sabotage the reforms. Sure,
crime in Venezuela is amongst the highest in the world but blaming
Chavez unilateraly is plain stupid. There are other factors at play
here. Also, claiming that Venezuela is on it's way to becoming the new
Zimbabwe... You gobbled too much propaganda my friend.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Unlike you, I haven't been reading about it on some
website. I'm Venezuelan. When Chavez became president, I was actually
very hopeful because the country needed a change. We were all sick of
the two corrupt parties that had been stealing the money and neglecting
the poor. It turns out Chavez's party has been even more corrupt. Like
you say, the price of the dollar went up after Chavez became president. I
give him credit for that. The country made more money than ever before.
The problem is that no one knows where all the money went! Chavez built
less housing for the poor than previous governments. Instead of
promoting investment, they scared anyone who wanted to do business.
People are constantly afraid of having their land or property taken over
by the government for no reason. And I'm not talking about huge land
owners. My uncle is a farmer who has a small piece of land and has
worked very hard all his life and he's desperate because people with
ties to the government keep threatening him and want to take everything
that he's worked for his whole life, just like that. It's a mafia. Even
the police are corrupted. That's part of the reason why the crime is so
bad. It was already bad when Chavez became president, this is true. I
was mugged a few times before then. But it's become absolutely horrible.
There's no comparison. It's like a war zone. You go there and stay, not
for a week, but for a year and see how you like it. They've been
running the country for 15 years now. They're also controlling prices,
to the point that it makes no sense to run a business because you'll end
up losing money. The result is that even the most basic goods like
milk, sugar, meat, coffee have become scarce. Venezuela is importing now
more than ever. It's ridiculous. But there's a control on currency
exchange, which means that only those lucky ones (with ties to the
government) get to change Venezuelan bolivares for dollars can do any
business. People are angry. Inflation is over 50%. That's bad, the worst
in the hemisphere. And President Maduro just keeps borrowing more money
from the Chinese (which keeps getting stolen) and making the same
mistake. If only he would change directions. Even chavistas (Chavez
supporters) are upset. People like me, who oppose Maduro, are afraid
there could be a coup, because that could put even less prepared and
more corrupt people in power. Maduro was never prepared to be a
president. His party controls Congress (even though they got fewer
votes, just because of the way they set up the rules) and the Supreme
Court, so it will be difficult for Venezuela to dig itself out of that
hole.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
And by the way, I think every country gets the
government they deserve. I'm not saying it's all because of one man,
Chavez. He's only a symptom of a much larger problem, and that is how
childish and greedy Venezuelans have been for much of the past century.
It was inevitable that bullies like Chavez and Maduro would eventually
take advantage of the situation and gain limitless power. There may have
even been good intentions in the beginning, but they were incompetent
and corrupted by power.
What I'm saying is that if Chomsky is going to be so tough on Western powers (which is not a bad thing), he should then also be similarly tough on the likes of Chavez and Maduro. Otherwise, he's just promoting more of what he claims to be so much against, which is basically abuse of power.
What I'm saying is that if Chomsky is going to be so tough on Western powers (which is not a bad thing), he should then also be similarly tough on the likes of Chavez and Maduro. Otherwise, he's just promoting more of what he claims to be so much against, which is basically abuse of power.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
I appreciate your perspective, BN.
Chomsky's inconsistencies can seem maddening until you ponder the nightmarish consistency of the opposition. You can at least argue with Chomsky; not so the forces he opposes, which use a form of semiotics to naturalize their utterly synthetic position and make the mere questioning of that position seem a failure of patriotism.
I can also appreciate your anger at and familiarity with Chavez, but that doesn't mean the person who's arguing with you got their opinions "from some website." They were wrong to call your ideas stupid, but I also think it's wrong of you to suggest they're politically illiterate.
Chomsky's inconsistencies can seem maddening until you ponder the nightmarish consistency of the opposition. You can at least argue with Chomsky; not so the forces he opposes, which use a form of semiotics to naturalize their utterly synthetic position and make the mere questioning of that position seem a failure of patriotism.
I can also appreciate your anger at and familiarity with Chavez, but that doesn't mean the person who's arguing with you got their opinions "from some website." They were wrong to call your ideas stupid, but I also think it's wrong of you to suggest they're politically illiterate.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
My apologies if I jumped to quick conclusions.
I think I understand what you mean, Scrypt. Governments and news sources on both sides of the spectrum can be quite manipulative. I just feel Chomsky is not so different in some ways. It's something I thought I should bring up.
But I'm a lover of movies, not politics! ;)
I think I understand what you mean, Scrypt. Governments and news sources on both sides of the spectrum can be quite manipulative. I just feel Chomsky is not so different in some ways. It's something I thought I should bring up.
But I'm a lover of movies, not politics! ;)
Re: my problem with Chomsky
We can agree that Chomsky's views should be subject to
scrutiny. I'm only saying that the same people who regularly tear down
his views are the ones with vested interests in the higher levels of
corruption that Chomsky scrutinizes.
I'm all for testing Chomsky's views and finding points of disagreement. I'm just not thrilled with the idea of suggesting he's no different from the ulterior powers he opposes.
Whatever one might think about Chomsky, it wouldn't be right to call him a murderer. Whereas the people he opposes are often accomplices or, worse, the ones who phoned in the hit.
I'm all for testing Chomsky's views and finding points of disagreement. I'm just not thrilled with the idea of suggesting he's no different from the ulterior powers he opposes.
Whatever one might think about Chomsky, it wouldn't be right to call him a murderer. Whereas the people he opposes are often accomplices or, worse, the ones who phoned in the hit.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Chomsky has never bombed anyone, true. But he's shown
various degrees of support for regimes that are oppressive and
murderous. Check out, for example, this interview with him on Cuba:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/11/03/an-interview-with-noam-chom sky-on-cuba/
He tells it like it is when he talks about the Western powers, which is great. But there's not a word about the abuses of Cuba, which is unfair to those who are oppressed by the Castros, even rotting in jail just because they oppose them. From that interview, you'd think Castro's government is a heroic victim of Western powers. That's a very incomplete picture of reality, to say the least.
True, the Castro brothers aren't invading other countries, but let's remember they don't have the economic or military means. We can see what they do to those in Cuba whom they CAN control through force. They oppress them. They're bullies, thugs.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/11/03/an-interview-with-noam-chom sky-on-cuba/
He tells it like it is when he talks about the Western powers, which is great. But there's not a word about the abuses of Cuba, which is unfair to those who are oppressed by the Castros, even rotting in jail just because they oppose them. From that interview, you'd think Castro's government is a heroic victim of Western powers. That's a very incomplete picture of reality, to say the least.
True, the Castro brothers aren't invading other countries, but let's remember they don't have the economic or military means. We can see what they do to those in Cuba whom they CAN control through force. They oppress them. They're bullies, thugs.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
He never said he was a supporter of Castro. He has
criticized Castro in so many essays, interviews, and essays that your
viewpoint is absurd. Because of the fundamental problem with interviews
and writings, he can't detail how he feels about every single issue
because an interview would last for months to fully clarify everything.
When he states that Cuba stood up against American power, this statement
has nothing to do with Chomsky's view on the state of Cuba's democracy.
What he is detailing is the background for WHY the United States have
the policies they do regarding Cuba. It's not whether he believes Castro
is a good or bad guy.
Secondly, he has repeatedly made clear that there would be virtually no value him criticizing a nation's policies in which he has no influence in. He is an American writing about American policies. Noam Chomsky could have spent his entire career writing on the atrocities of every nation in the world outside of America and it would not have made one bit of difference. What motivates Chomsky is he is trying to help Americans gain the information they need in order to fight for change. That's it.
People please don't respond if you don't understand my two paragraphs. I'm not making an argument for a debate.
Secondly, he has repeatedly made clear that there would be virtually no value him criticizing a nation's policies in which he has no influence in. He is an American writing about American policies. Noam Chomsky could have spent his entire career writing on the atrocities of every nation in the world outside of America and it would not have made one bit of difference. What motivates Chomsky is he is trying to help Americans gain the information they need in order to fight for change. That's it.
People please don't respond if you don't understand my two paragraphs. I'm not making an argument for a debate.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
...he has repeatedly made clear that there would be virtually no value him criticizing a nation's policies in which he has no influence in. He is an American writing about American policies. Noam Chomsky could have spent his entire career writing on the atrocities of every nation in the world outside of America and it would not have made one bit of difference.
dahlberg31, Chomsky doesn't have to write about every single atrocity that's ever been committed out there (unfortunately, it would be a very long list), but more consistency would add credibility to his message. If he criticizes the U.S. but is supportive of Chavez, then I can't help but take him less seriously. People are always looking for better solutions... Those who pay attention to what he says may end up believing that the likes of Chavez are actually a great alternative to the many great problems that American-style government presents, rather than putting things into perspective and saying, "Ok, it's true the U.S. and Europe have these problems, but that doesn't necessarily mean that such and such regime is great. Two bads don't make one good." He's considered an authoritative figure in many circles, so his opinion can actually influence governments and the minds of regular, young people out there.
You say he's been very critical of Cuba. Let's take the interview that I mentioned earlier as an example. I think if you're in Cuba talking about how bad the U.S. is, it would only be fair to then add that the Castros have done some very terrible things as well, considering the circumstances. Otherwise, he makes the Castros look quite good in comparison. Now, it's possible that the interview was edited or that he's been very critical of Cuba in other essays and interviews. I have no reason not to believe you. If you have any links or quotes, please post them, as I'd honestly be very interested in reading them. I can mainly talk about Venezuela, because I've paid a little more attention when he's mentioned my country, and so far he's seemed very supportive of the current government and very minimally critical.
There is no such thing as a perfect government on this planet. So it's only fair to come clean and expose the different problems that different regimes pose, rather than idealizing a particular brand.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Chomsky says he's not criticizing America's enemies
partially because he doesn't need to do that; they get more than enough
criticism from the establishment. The problem with that is he constatly
attacks the establishment's credibilty. We need non-biased sources about
Cuba, Venezuela and Iran - that don't idealize them, but don't make
them into an "axis of evil" (or whatever) either.
If Chomsky only said that the Cuban government, while opressive, is better than many governments the US supported, that'd be fine. But in the interview linked here, he doesn't have one bad word about Cuba.
If Chomsky only said that the Cuban government, while opressive, is better than many governments the US supported, that'd be fine. But in the interview linked here, he doesn't have one bad word about Cuba.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: my problem with Chomsky
He's long been famous as a political hack, a man who
resorts to citing himself isn't exactly a beacon of intellectual
integrity. The issue with this guy is that he's taken his authority
which only applies to a specific area of linguistics and where his ideas
have frankly fallen out of favor anyways, and he takes those
credentials to have authority in the area of politics, where he has
none. So outside him being an academic, he's just a guy with an
opinion, and there are far too many mindless followers of this guy
because he says some half baked things which appeal to their preexisting
biases.
And yes noodle, thats the way he operates, its no different with israel, he will ramble off the "crimes" and go off on a diatribe, but he is effectively silent about the other side, so his biases are extreme as those you find on the right on fox news, there is no objective honesty in his thought, and thats the problem. Fox news are hacks but they are what they are, chomsky claims to be an academic, yet shows the same lack of respect for intellectual honesty, so his crime is worse than theirs because he should know better.
And yes noodle, thats the way he operates, its no different with israel, he will ramble off the "crimes" and go off on a diatribe, but he is effectively silent about the other side, so his biases are extreme as those you find on the right on fox news, there is no objective honesty in his thought, and thats the problem. Fox news are hacks but they are what they are, chomsky claims to be an academic, yet shows the same lack of respect for intellectual honesty, so his crime is worse than theirs because he should know better.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
The last post is a typical political smear campaign
that should be disregarded, Chomsky is never attacked for something he
explicitly states, but always either positions he supposedly took that
invariably turn out he did not take or ad hominem's and vacuous
arguments like 'he did his work in linguistcs and now he thinks that
makes him an expert' and his 'half-baked views' that try to disregard
him or paint him outside the accepted borders of debate. You know,
you're such a nut for saying we commit atrocities, how can you compare
the invasion of Vietnam to the Soviet of invasion of Afghanistan, don't
you know we're a free liberal democracy, while the Soviet Union was a
totalitarian oppressive undemocratic regime?
The simple fact of the matter is that Chomsky is an American and he reserves the bulk of his criticism for America, not simply because it's been the overwhelming world power for the majority of his life (and has commensurately committed more crimes post WW2 than any other state) but BECAUSE HE IS AN AMERICAN. It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize others for their crimes, it's much more difficult to look in the mirror and bring yourself under the scrutiny you reserve for others. Chomsky has no responsibility for the actions of the Venezuelan and Cuban governments, those governments do not purport to represent him, on the other hand, the actions the US government does, unless it does not represent the people and we've been lied to, are something he is to responsible for to a certain extent. Just because Russia or Iran are more backwards societies, does that excuse our crimes? Just because our neighbour killed two people, are we to be exonerated because we only killed one person?
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
The simple fact of the matter is that Chomsky is an American and he reserves the bulk of his criticism for America, not simply because it's been the overwhelming world power for the majority of his life (and has commensurately committed more crimes post WW2 than any other state) but BECAUSE HE IS AN AMERICAN. It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize others for their crimes, it's much more difficult to look in the mirror and bring yourself under the scrutiny you reserve for others. Chomsky has no responsibility for the actions of the Venezuelan and Cuban governments, those governments do not purport to represent him, on the other hand, the actions the US government does, unless it does not represent the people and we've been lied to, are something he is to responsible for to a certain extent. Just because Russia or Iran are more backwards societies, does that excuse our crimes? Just because our neighbour killed two people, are we to be exonerated because we only killed one person?
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Its not typical, its logical, he relies on false
authority for his credibility, his list long complaints, his diatribes
against the west are nothing new on the left, and he's provided no
insight or credible solutions, he's just an old crank on the left who
tends to his flock of sheep no different than a Hannity or Limbaugh
does. He just stands behind his credentials as an professor is the
difference.
Atrocities? I'm sure many atrocities were committed by everyone during ww2. The problem is when you draw false moral equivalence between sides because of incidents.
Its easy and frankly standard behavior for the to spend their time criticizing their own side, by own side I really don't mean their actual own side, you don't really see Chomsky attacking his own side, he attacks the west and American..a place where people like him are tolerated. Its not hard to find people like him, you can even find jewish holocaust deniers like david cole, and its these people who get the most attention from a certain set of people who find it fits their biases even better... because after all if a jew said the holocaust didn't happen, it really must not have. David cole is every skinheads dream, just as Chomsky is the dream to many in the leftist antiwestern/anti Israeli crowd. Anyways this affliction on mostly the left isn't really about attacking your own side, its about elevating yourself with self righteousness. It has no psychological downside of actually "attacking yourself" would imply, he's not attacking his own side, very far from it. Chomsky works with this on so several levels, anti western, anti Israel..as a jew from the west.. you get the picture.
He doesn't pay a price either, he constantly is invited to talks, makes films, writes books which are sold to this day and is fawned over. He's not rotting in a prison because he stood on principle for something. To give him credit for taking an "unpopular position" is like giving rush Limbaugh credit for being his pompous self.
Chomsky has no responsibility, yet he demands extreme responsibility from everyone else. I find that funny. But that's how it goes with such people, they have arbitrary standards. Its like when Chomsky goes after Israel, he has extreme standards of responsibility for the jews, and none for the other side.
Atrocities? I'm sure many atrocities were committed by everyone during ww2. The problem is when you draw false moral equivalence between sides because of incidents.
Its easy and frankly standard behavior for the to spend their time criticizing their own side, by own side I really don't mean their actual own side, you don't really see Chomsky attacking his own side, he attacks the west and American..a place where people like him are tolerated. Its not hard to find people like him, you can even find jewish holocaust deniers like david cole, and its these people who get the most attention from a certain set of people who find it fits their biases even better... because after all if a jew said the holocaust didn't happen, it really must not have. David cole is every skinheads dream, just as Chomsky is the dream to many in the leftist antiwestern/anti Israeli crowd. Anyways this affliction on mostly the left isn't really about attacking your own side, its about elevating yourself with self righteousness. It has no psychological downside of actually "attacking yourself" would imply, he's not attacking his own side, very far from it. Chomsky works with this on so several levels, anti western, anti Israel..as a jew from the west.. you get the picture.
He doesn't pay a price either, he constantly is invited to talks, makes films, writes books which are sold to this day and is fawned over. He's not rotting in a prison because he stood on principle for something. To give him credit for taking an "unpopular position" is like giving rush Limbaugh credit for being his pompous self.
Chomsky has no responsibility, yet he demands extreme responsibility from everyone else. I find that funny. But that's how it goes with such people, they have arbitrary standards. Its like when Chomsky goes after Israel, he has extreme standards of responsibility for the jews, and none for the other side.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
He doesn't rely 'on authority', if Chomsky is known
for one thing it is that he always does his homework assiduously, always
checks the facts. He doesn't 'provide solutions', because they're
there, everybody knows them, just the people in power don't want to hear
them. Want to stop terrorism? Stop committing terrorist acts. Stop
murdering people extralegally in Yemen and elsewhere. Want to prevent
Iran from trying to develop a nuclear weapon? Establish a nuclear-free
zone in the Middle East etc.
Moral equivalence is a made-up term, so egregiously stupid only the professional ideologues can believe in it. The essence of moral equivalence is this: Russia is an authoritarian economically less developed quasidemocracy, the US is a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, therefore it is nonsense to equate when we kill people to when they kill people. I am an upstanding tax-paying citizen, my neighbour has a police record, we both kill a person, how the hell can you equate our acts, don't you know I'm otherwise a good guy? Again, such a stupid made-up term there to excuse committing crimes.
The rest of your criticism is a silly smear campaign without substance, so obviously superficial and shallow. If you criticize the official state policy of the US and Israel or the West, you're anti-Israel, anti-West, anti-Us. This is an amazing feat of propaganda in the US that people tolerate this kind of language, the only other states in recent memory where anti- was used when someone dared criticize official policy were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Go to a European country and tell a normal Italian that a 'leftist' who criticizes Italian policy is anti-Italian and they'll laugh in your face.
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Moral equivalence is a made-up term, so egregiously stupid only the professional ideologues can believe in it. The essence of moral equivalence is this: Russia is an authoritarian economically less developed quasidemocracy, the US is a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, therefore it is nonsense to equate when we kill people to when they kill people. I am an upstanding tax-paying citizen, my neighbour has a police record, we both kill a person, how the hell can you equate our acts, don't you know I'm otherwise a good guy? Again, such a stupid made-up term there to excuse committing crimes.
The rest of your criticism is a silly smear campaign without substance, so obviously superficial and shallow. If you criticize the official state policy of the US and Israel or the West, you're anti-Israel, anti-West, anti-Us. This is an amazing feat of propaganda in the US that people tolerate this kind of language, the only other states in recent memory where anti- was used when someone dared criticize official policy were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Go to a European country and tell a normal Italian that a 'leftist' who criticizes Italian policy is anti-Italian and they'll laugh in your face.
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
If he actually did homework, his case would be
unimpeachable, but that's obviously not the case. He's just a political
hack like so many others and he spends his books grinding his
particular axe, nothing more. He does rely on authority whether you
like it or not, he's always presented with his credentials and he's
never shied away from this, and his supporters tend to use this false
authority to claim credibility by default.
Moral equivalence isn't a made up term. If you deliberately choose not to take things into account, all reasoning becomes absurd. A soldier that kills 30 people is as much of a murderer as as the Virginia tech shooter who killed a similar amount in cold blood by simplistic reasoning. Its a fixation on a detail to miss the wider picture, many times to simply distort historical reality and thus judgment, in order that one can mislead people in order to sell the moral inversion which their own narrative of history relies on.
Smear campaigns without substance again? Sorry, I think again, you are describing your hero.. Chomsky. Actually no, its quite the other away around. Bashing Israel is rather popular in the left, on college campuses and in academia, its hardly suppressed in any real way. So lets stop pretending your sides being silenced when frankly its the other way around. Theres nothing quite as intolerant as a leftist when it comes to political views. Aggressive anti us anti Israeli propaganda is pervasive in the world, in the muslim world, and even in Europe, never mind even in countries where we supposedly have a "special relationship", its amazing you don't realize how much "propaganda" your side is responsible for.
Moral equivalence isn't a made up term. If you deliberately choose not to take things into account, all reasoning becomes absurd. A soldier that kills 30 people is as much of a murderer as as the Virginia tech shooter who killed a similar amount in cold blood by simplistic reasoning. Its a fixation on a detail to miss the wider picture, many times to simply distort historical reality and thus judgment, in order that one can mislead people in order to sell the moral inversion which their own narrative of history relies on.
Smear campaigns without substance again? Sorry, I think again, you are describing your hero.. Chomsky. Actually no, its quite the other away around. Bashing Israel is rather popular in the left, on college campuses and in academia, its hardly suppressed in any real way. So lets stop pretending your sides being silenced when frankly its the other way around. Theres nothing quite as intolerant as a leftist when it comes to political views. Aggressive anti us anti Israeli propaganda is pervasive in the world, in the muslim world, and even in Europe, never mind even in countries where we supposedly have a "special relationship", its amazing you don't realize how much "propaganda" your side is responsible for.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Hear, hear! Another lovely tribute to the man, by Jeff Cohen of FAIR:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20716-noam-chomsky-inspires-and-invigorates
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20716-noam-chomsky-inspires-and-invigorates
Post deleted
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Re: my problem with Chomsky
At least 4 messages of utter nonsense. You should go back to school and learn how to think.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
You might take your own advice, so you might finally
figure out why this guy has no credibility outside his own herd of
sheep, no different than any political hack writer.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
From what I have read and seen of the critiques of
Chomsky, they usually amount to apoplectic ranting and shouting "How can
you denigrate the integrity of the U.S." etc., etc. There is no
substantial critique that I've seen (and I've seen many) as most are
unable to assail him on his use of evidence (which is NOT
self-referenced).
There is no "herd of sheep" as you accuse, but a broad-based collection of thoughtful people who also question the integrity of the U.S. and its allies and see Chomsky's evidence as unassailable. There are many others who have taken up the mantle of this critique who have uncovered even more evidence. Just because those in power and those in the "influential" media refuse to acknowledge his critique, doesn't make them right.
There is no "herd of sheep" as you accuse, but a broad-based collection of thoughtful people who also question the integrity of the U.S. and its allies and see Chomsky's evidence as unassailable. There are many others who have taken up the mantle of this critique who have uncovered even more evidence. Just because those in power and those in the "influential" media refuse to acknowledge his critique, doesn't make them right.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
And the defenders just claim he cites sources. Therefore his arguments must be unimpeachable and his reasoning sound.
Sorry no, just step outside your bubble sometime, as I've said, every political hacks books are filled with citations, that's how they work, citations in no way preclude one from using misleading or invalid arguments, don't be so naïve.
Sorry no, just step outside your bubble sometime, as I've said, every political hacks books are filled with citations, that's how they work, citations in no way preclude one from using misleading or invalid arguments, don't be so naïve.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Here is a similar thread regarding Chomsky's validity by 'siva_chair'
who does a far better job at critique than 'tetrahex' (whose style betrays a clear lack of formal education):
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-284612.html
I agree with Chomsky for the most part, but his greatest use is in the raising of interesting ideas, which then I am always free to agree with his particular opinion on or not.
Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable
who does a far better job at critique than 'tetrahex' (whose style betrays a clear lack of formal education):
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-284612.html
I agree with Chomsky for the most part, but his greatest use is in the raising of interesting ideas, which then I am always free to agree with his particular opinion on or not.
Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable
Post deleted
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Thanks for this. Another thoughtful response to Chomsky is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/11/when-academics-fail-us/
(Hint: Chomsky is not one of them)
(Hint: Chomsky is not one of them)
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Tetrahex, by your logic YOU should not write anything
since you have no "credentials to have authority in the area of
politics." So why are you posting you view points?
Secondly, obviously you have never read a single book written by Chomsky (or probably any book for that matter). His books are densely filled with footnotes that its often hard to find "opinion." And you obviously either didn't attend college or learn anything because essays written by historians, sociologists, political scientists, etc., are not opinions. They have a thesis that is then backed up with evidence. Only uneducated people attack the author rather than the substance because then the "discussion" is framed in a way where logic doesn't apply. That's why political campaigns are about attacking opponents personality rather than discuss issues.
Secondly, obviously you have never read a single book written by Chomsky (or probably any book for that matter). His books are densely filled with footnotes that its often hard to find "opinion." And you obviously either didn't attend college or learn anything because essays written by historians, sociologists, political scientists, etc., are not opinions. They have a thesis that is then backed up with evidence. Only uneducated people attack the author rather than the substance because then the "discussion" is framed in a way where logic doesn't apply. That's why political campaigns are about attacking opponents personality rather than discuss issues.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
I don't make my case based on false authority. He
does. His followers and sheep are no better than those that follow the
limbaughs or bill oreilys out there. They give him more credibility
than he deserves. And I guess since you have no credentials yourself
you must admit that rush Limbaugh is more authoritative than you are and
by default deserves respect.
You'd have to be incredibly naïve to believe that if someone has footnotes or even dense footnotes they aren't just pushing opinion. Lying with footnotes is the same type of deception used by those who quote bad or misleading or just mischaracterized statistics all the time. Distortion, selective evidence and omission with footnotes is a standard play by hack political pundits of all stripes..so again, don't' be so naïve.
You'd have to be incredibly naïve to believe that if someone has footnotes or even dense footnotes they aren't just pushing opinion. Lying with footnotes is the same type of deception used by those who quote bad or misleading or just mischaracterized statistics all the time. Distortion, selective evidence and omission with footnotes is a standard play by hack political pundits of all stripes..so again, don't' be so naïve.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
I've read some Chomsky and my understanding of his political views are this:
-He's basically an anarchist. He believes that all governments commit crimes almost as a part of their nature. For him, the idea of a government is essentially immoral.
-The reason he is often seen as speaking out against the US, Europe, and the Soviets/Russia is because in the modern era, these countries have been the most powerful. Therefore they have committed the most and the largest crimes by any reasonable measure (in the past 500 years). I don't take this to mean that he only opposes western governments, it's just so easy to find examples of significant misbehavior among these more powerful states that has often gone unrecognized.
-A second reason that he spends so much time objecting to the the Western countries (and specifically America) is because he sees these countries as hypocritical. Many Americans, since world war I, have viewed America's foreign policy as beneficial to everyone. Americans see themselves as "the good guys" or "the protagonists" who are enlightened and use their resources to benefit the world (defenders of democracy and so on). Chomsky finds this attitude ridiculous, especially in light of the actual effects that the actions pursued by America have had (he often cites Nicaragua, Chile, Columbia, and Iran as examples of America enabling or even handpicking repressive regimes or simply funding terrorism). It's this hypocrisy that Chomsky tries to bring to light, and it explains his focus on America and Europe.
-As bad as many "third world" dictators may be, everyone knows they're bad. There isn't this widespread belief that they are good people trying to make the world a better place.
-One thing that Chomsky believes in is public ownership of the means of the production. While I wouldn't call him a communist (remember, I called him an anarchist), I think it comes out strongly in his work that he believes that the workers should control the means of production. Whether you like Chavez or not, he has closed some of the gap between the people and industry (namely oil).
Additionally:
I've read and studied a fair amount about Venezuela and I think you're exaggerating the brutality of the regime. Ask yourself this: if Chavez is so brutal and horrible, then how was he so popular? A lot of native Venezuelans who opposed Chavez seem to be in denial about a few basic facts:
-The poor in the country widely supported Chavez (and 70% of the country were poor--when I looked at the numbers, some time ago, I don't know if it's changed).
-The rich who opposed him were and are a significant minority.
For some reason that your argument does not explain, the poor people in the country like Chavez. They love him. The explanations for this that I have read are that he has built public housing and he has nationalized the oil industry. Both of these things are highly popular, and public housing was very much needed.
Now, I don't think Chavez is a good guy. I've read too much about him to think that. His human rights record is not good, and you probably have a good case talking about his general incompetence and the negative effect he has had on the country and its economy. But I think you're exaggerating his duplicity and the evils of his regime to a bizarre level. One example of this is the idea that he cheated in the elections that he continually won. Sources that I have read say this isn't true. He won due to his popularity.
With all of that said:
-This board is the wrong place to talk about this. The movie is almost explicitly not about politics. The film itself focuses on linguistics, ways of viewing the world, and personal questions. I found it quite entertaining in a unique way, and I recommend it.
-He's basically an anarchist. He believes that all governments commit crimes almost as a part of their nature. For him, the idea of a government is essentially immoral.
-The reason he is often seen as speaking out against the US, Europe, and the Soviets/Russia is because in the modern era, these countries have been the most powerful. Therefore they have committed the most and the largest crimes by any reasonable measure (in the past 500 years). I don't take this to mean that he only opposes western governments, it's just so easy to find examples of significant misbehavior among these more powerful states that has often gone unrecognized.
-A second reason that he spends so much time objecting to the the Western countries (and specifically America) is because he sees these countries as hypocritical. Many Americans, since world war I, have viewed America's foreign policy as beneficial to everyone. Americans see themselves as "the good guys" or "the protagonists" who are enlightened and use their resources to benefit the world (defenders of democracy and so on). Chomsky finds this attitude ridiculous, especially in light of the actual effects that the actions pursued by America have had (he often cites Nicaragua, Chile, Columbia, and Iran as examples of America enabling or even handpicking repressive regimes or simply funding terrorism). It's this hypocrisy that Chomsky tries to bring to light, and it explains his focus on America and Europe.
-As bad as many "third world" dictators may be, everyone knows they're bad. There isn't this widespread belief that they are good people trying to make the world a better place.
-One thing that Chomsky believes in is public ownership of the means of the production. While I wouldn't call him a communist (remember, I called him an anarchist), I think it comes out strongly in his work that he believes that the workers should control the means of production. Whether you like Chavez or not, he has closed some of the gap between the people and industry (namely oil).
Additionally:
I've read and studied a fair amount about Venezuela and I think you're exaggerating the brutality of the regime. Ask yourself this: if Chavez is so brutal and horrible, then how was he so popular? A lot of native Venezuelans who opposed Chavez seem to be in denial about a few basic facts:
-The poor in the country widely supported Chavez (and 70% of the country were poor--when I looked at the numbers, some time ago, I don't know if it's changed).
-The rich who opposed him were and are a significant minority.
For some reason that your argument does not explain, the poor people in the country like Chavez. They love him. The explanations for this that I have read are that he has built public housing and he has nationalized the oil industry. Both of these things are highly popular, and public housing was very much needed.
Now, I don't think Chavez is a good guy. I've read too much about him to think that. His human rights record is not good, and you probably have a good case talking about his general incompetence and the negative effect he has had on the country and its economy. But I think you're exaggerating his duplicity and the evils of his regime to a bizarre level. One example of this is the idea that he cheated in the elections that he continually won. Sources that I have read say this isn't true. He won due to his popularity.
With all of that said:
-This board is the wrong place to talk about this. The movie is almost explicitly not about politics. The film itself focuses on linguistics, ways of viewing the world, and personal questions. I found it quite entertaining in a unique way, and I recommend it.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Just to make it clear: I don't religiously follow
Chomsky on politics. I think he has an interesting outlook on the
world. His writing helped me to think about things in a different way.
That said, a lot of what he says is historically incorrect -- in my opinion. I also agree with the OP that his behavior in regards to regimes that commit significant crimes against humanity is sometimes baffling.
Overall, he has undeniably contributed a lot to the discourse about science, politics, and linguistics and I value him for that as well as his frank manner.
That said, a lot of what he says is historically incorrect -- in my opinion. I also agree with the OP that his behavior in regards to regimes that commit significant crimes against humanity is sometimes baffling.
Overall, he has undeniably contributed a lot to the discourse about science, politics, and linguistics and I value him for that as well as his frank manner.
Re: my problem with Chomsky
Remembervhs, you seem like a thoughtful person and I
can tell that you've been reading about Venezuela. We seem to at least
agree in that, as you put it, Chomsky's "behavior in regards to regimes
that commit significant crimes against humanity is sometimes baffling."
I'll reply to some of your points:
I believe you're being a bit naive. Third world despots spend fortunes at home advertising themselves as heroes and many in their countries believe them. In Venezuela, President Maduro regularly refers to Chavez as "The Christ" and his government portrays him as a saintly figure on par with Jesus. (I'm not religious, but I find the comparison tacky and dangerous.) Their party enthusiastically defend the likes of Saddam Hussein, Libya's Gadaffi and Syria's Assad. They've decorated some of those dictators with Venezuela's highest honors. You'll never hear them admit that they're responsible for terrible attrocities. According to them, that's just the US government making up lies about the most distinguished world leaders.
Actually, there's more corruption now than ever before. That's one of the main criticisms of his government. The price of oil went through the roof, but Venezuela gained little from that bonanza.
It's true that Chavez's party has been more popular among the poor and uneducated. But their support declined more recently, as the government's failures became more evident. In this year's presidential elections, Maduro won by less than 1.5% of the vote, according to the official results. That means basically half of the country voted for Capriles, the opposition leader.
Also, the math is not as black and white as you put it. The opposition tends to win in the country's main cities, while Chavez's support is strongest in rural areas. Chavez has lost in some of the poorest neighborhoods of Caracas, the capital.
Sadly, many bad leaders around the world have been very popular. If only good leaders were popular, the Earth would be a very different place. Mao is an example of a power-hungry, criminally incompetent leader whose policies resulted in starvation and the death of millions – e.g. the Great Leap Forward – yet remained hugely popular.
Chavez was full of promise when he started out and he offered a much needed and welcome change. He was charismatic and full of energy. But in reality, he disappointed and missed a fantastic opportunity. For 14 years, he had popular support, complete control of all three branches of the government, his own brand new Constitution (which he later changed according to his needs) and an unprecedented influx of money from oil. Unfortunately, he has little to show for all that. The result is a failed, corrupt economy. He actually built fewer houses than previous governments.
Don't get me wrong, I think Chavez did some positive things for the poor. To begin with, he brought attention to them and I applaud that. He developed some social programs that provide rudimentary health care and teach the poor how to read and write. And there's more. I don't pretend Chavez was 100% bad or "evil". He certainly was no Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. But you have to look at the larger picture. Hospitals in Venezuela are overwhelmed and underfunded. There's scarcity of medicines. Also, of basic goods like milk, meat, sugar, flour, etc. as well as medicines. Crime is rampant. The economy is in tatters. They've created armed, popular militias and allowed the Colombian guerrillas to settle in Venezuelan territory. This can eventually explode in violence. The government keeps promising the poor houses, cars, money, etc. if they sign up with the party, but that kind of system cannot last in the long run.
I think Chavez's success in presidential elections was based more on the emotional than the rational. Notice that the less charismatic Maduro (who was handpicked by Chavez as his heir) was only able to win by less than 1.5% of the votes, according to the official results, only a few months after Chavez won by a larger margin. Chavez learned about the cult of personality from Mao and others.
The government was losing support for today's local elections, so they imposed new regulations on everything from the price of home appliances and cars to the rent of office spaces. This will give them the momentum they need, but it will be catastrophic for the economy. Things will be cheaper in the long run, but businesses will go broke in the longer run, because they cannot make a profit under the new laws.
You're only right to some extent. Yes, Chavez was very popular and won the presidential elections handily. But there was serious cheating.
Just to give you one example: when Venezuelans collected thousands of signatures for a referendum against Chavez (which was perfectly legal according to Chavez's new Constitution), the government posted online a list of those who had signed the petition and had them all fired permanently from public jobs. This is no secret. Chavez defended the procedure on TV and only had the list removed and "buried" years later. You can look up the 'Tascon List' on Wikipedia. Now, if Bush had done that, Chomsky would have been up in arms! But if Chavez does it, it's cool, somehow. Chavez's party also suggested repeatedly that they'd be able to know who had voted against him in the following elections and that they'd have them fired as well. It's classic voter intimidation. Many videos have surfaced in which leaders of government institutions threatened to fire anyone who didn't show full support for Chavez.
Another example: When opposition candidate Antonio Ledezma won the 2008 Caracas mayoral elections, Chavez simply created a brand new position, Head of the Venezuelan Capital District, which took over most functions, funding, and personnel from Ledezma's office. Chavez then handpicked someone from his party, Jacqueline Faría, for the position, therefore virtually replacing Ledezma and bypassing the will of the voters. He could do things like that, because he had a majority of Congress and the Supreme Court on their side.
Chavez's party also set up the rules for congressional elections in such a way that the more rural states, where they have stronger support, count proportionally for more members of Congress than the more populous, urban states where the opposition is more popular.
Because they control the Supreme Court, they constantly decide who in the opposition can run or not for public office. (Meanwhile, they won't investigate the top leaders of their party who are accused of corruption – e.g. head of Congress, Diosdado Cabello.)
Like I said before, in the most recent presidential elections, Maduro supposedly won by less than 1.5% (even after handing out money to supporters, having assisted voting, etc.) The opposition claimed that the number of voters recorded by the electoral machines didn't match the numbers shown in the electoral notebooks, where voters signed their names by hand and left their fingerprints. To prove it, they demanded that both records (machines and notebooks) be compared in public, but the Supreme Court refused, leaving doubts about the validity of the vote count. They only had the votes from the machines recounted.
Both Chavez and Maduro have been allowed to rule by decree for many months at a time, without the participation of the opposition in Congress.
The documentary is an interview with someone who's been very vocal about his political views, so I think it's fair enough to discuss them, even if the focus of the film isn't politics.
One last thing: news sources, unfortunately, tend to be biased. Most will either support or condemn Chavez consistently. I believe in reading different sites across the spectrum in order to balance things out. The Guardian, for example, is very pro-Chavez. The New York Times, on the other hand, is very critical of him and his party. Many news sources on the left (like The Huffington Post) have been critical in many instances. El Pais, a Spanish newspaper that strongly leans left, is also very critical. (For the English version: http://elpais.com/elpais/inenglish.html)
As bad as many "third world" dictators may be, everyone knows they're bad. There isn't this widespread belief that they are good people trying to make the world a better place.
I believe you're being a bit naive. Third world despots spend fortunes at home advertising themselves as heroes and many in their countries believe them. In Venezuela, President Maduro regularly refers to Chavez as "The Christ" and his government portrays him as a saintly figure on par with Jesus. (I'm not religious, but I find the comparison tacky and dangerous.) Their party enthusiastically defend the likes of Saddam Hussein, Libya's Gadaffi and Syria's Assad. They've decorated some of those dictators with Venezuela's highest honors. You'll never hear them admit that they're responsible for terrible attrocities. According to them, that's just the US government making up lies about the most distinguished world leaders.
Whether you like Chavez or not, he has closed some of the gap between the people and industry (namely oil).
Actually, there's more corruption now than ever before. That's one of the main criticisms of his government. The price of oil went through the roof, but Venezuela gained little from that bonanza.
If Chavez is so brutal and horrible, then how was he so popular? A lot of native Venezuelans who opposed Chavez seem to be in denial about a few basic facts:
-The poor in the country widely supported Chavez (and 70% of the country were poor--when I looked at the numbers, some time ago, I don't know if it's changed).
-The rich who opposed him were and are a significant minority.
It's true that Chavez's party has been more popular among the poor and uneducated. But their support declined more recently, as the government's failures became more evident. In this year's presidential elections, Maduro won by less than 1.5% of the vote, according to the official results. That means basically half of the country voted for Capriles, the opposition leader.
Also, the math is not as black and white as you put it. The opposition tends to win in the country's main cities, while Chavez's support is strongest in rural areas. Chavez has lost in some of the poorest neighborhoods of Caracas, the capital.
For some reason that your argument does not explain, the poor people in the country like Chavez. They love him. The explanations for this that I have read are that he has built public housing and he has nationalized the oil industry. Both of these things are highly popular, and public housing was very much needed.
Sadly, many bad leaders around the world have been very popular. If only good leaders were popular, the Earth would be a very different place. Mao is an example of a power-hungry, criminally incompetent leader whose policies resulted in starvation and the death of millions – e.g. the Great Leap Forward – yet remained hugely popular.
Chavez was full of promise when he started out and he offered a much needed and welcome change. He was charismatic and full of energy. But in reality, he disappointed and missed a fantastic opportunity. For 14 years, he had popular support, complete control of all three branches of the government, his own brand new Constitution (which he later changed according to his needs) and an unprecedented influx of money from oil. Unfortunately, he has little to show for all that. The result is a failed, corrupt economy. He actually built fewer houses than previous governments.
Don't get me wrong, I think Chavez did some positive things for the poor. To begin with, he brought attention to them and I applaud that. He developed some social programs that provide rudimentary health care and teach the poor how to read and write. And there's more. I don't pretend Chavez was 100% bad or "evil". He certainly was no Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. But you have to look at the larger picture. Hospitals in Venezuela are overwhelmed and underfunded. There's scarcity of medicines. Also, of basic goods like milk, meat, sugar, flour, etc. as well as medicines. Crime is rampant. The economy is in tatters. They've created armed, popular militias and allowed the Colombian guerrillas to settle in Venezuelan territory. This can eventually explode in violence. The government keeps promising the poor houses, cars, money, etc. if they sign up with the party, but that kind of system cannot last in the long run.
I think Chavez's success in presidential elections was based more on the emotional than the rational. Notice that the less charismatic Maduro (who was handpicked by Chavez as his heir) was only able to win by less than 1.5% of the votes, according to the official results, only a few months after Chavez won by a larger margin. Chavez learned about the cult of personality from Mao and others.
The government was losing support for today's local elections, so they imposed new regulations on everything from the price of home appliances and cars to the rent of office spaces. This will give them the momentum they need, but it will be catastrophic for the economy. Things will be cheaper in the long run, but businesses will go broke in the longer run, because they cannot make a profit under the new laws.
I think you're exaggerating his duplicity and the evils of his regime to a bizarre level. One example of this is the idea that he cheated in the elections that he continually won. Sources that I have read say this isn't true. He won due to his popularity.
You're only right to some extent. Yes, Chavez was very popular and won the presidential elections handily. But there was serious cheating.
Just to give you one example: when Venezuelans collected thousands of signatures for a referendum against Chavez (which was perfectly legal according to Chavez's new Constitution), the government posted online a list of those who had signed the petition and had them all fired permanently from public jobs. This is no secret. Chavez defended the procedure on TV and only had the list removed and "buried" years later. You can look up the 'Tascon List' on Wikipedia. Now, if Bush had done that, Chomsky would have been up in arms! But if Chavez does it, it's cool, somehow. Chavez's party also suggested repeatedly that they'd be able to know who had voted against him in the following elections and that they'd have them fired as well. It's classic voter intimidation. Many videos have surfaced in which leaders of government institutions threatened to fire anyone who didn't show full support for Chavez.
Another example: When opposition candidate Antonio Ledezma won the 2008 Caracas mayoral elections, Chavez simply created a brand new position, Head of the Venezuelan Capital District, which took over most functions, funding, and personnel from Ledezma's office. Chavez then handpicked someone from his party, Jacqueline Faría, for the position, therefore virtually replacing Ledezma and bypassing the will of the voters. He could do things like that, because he had a majority of Congress and the Supreme Court on their side.
Chavez's party also set up the rules for congressional elections in such a way that the more rural states, where they have stronger support, count proportionally for more members of Congress than the more populous, urban states where the opposition is more popular.
Because they control the Supreme Court, they constantly decide who in the opposition can run or not for public office. (Meanwhile, they won't investigate the top leaders of their party who are accused of corruption – e.g. head of Congress, Diosdado Cabello.)
Like I said before, in the most recent presidential elections, Maduro supposedly won by less than 1.5% (even after handing out money to supporters, having assisted voting, etc.) The opposition claimed that the number of voters recorded by the electoral machines didn't match the numbers shown in the electoral notebooks, where voters signed their names by hand and left their fingerprints. To prove it, they demanded that both records (machines and notebooks) be compared in public, but the Supreme Court refused, leaving doubts about the validity of the vote count. They only had the votes from the machines recounted.
Both Chavez and Maduro have been allowed to rule by decree for many months at a time, without the participation of the opposition in Congress.
This board is the wrong place to talk about this. The movie is almost explicitly not about politics.
The documentary is an interview with someone who's been very vocal about his political views, so I think it's fair enough to discuss them, even if the focus of the film isn't politics.
One last thing: news sources, unfortunately, tend to be biased. Most will either support or condemn Chavez consistently. I believe in reading different sites across the spectrum in order to balance things out. The Guardian, for example, is very pro-Chavez. The New York Times, on the other hand, is very critical of him and his party. Many news sources on the left (like The Huffington Post) have been critical in many instances. El Pais, a Spanish newspaper that strongly leans left, is also very critical. (For the English version: http://elpais.com/elpais/inenglish.html)
Re: my problem with Chomsky
retard
[accidentally shoots himself in the head]Dale :"You kids should really start being more careful"-
[accidentally shoots himself in the head]Dale :"You kids should really start being more careful"-
No comments:
Post a Comment