The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Accidental Ajarn

“and obviously you believe that free markets work, when everybody else knows it doesn't.”

BF

Who is this everyone you are referring to?

Obviously anyone, and I mean anyone, who has made a study of the empirical economic evidence knows the vast majority (I am talking about over 99%) of studies that have been carried out by analysing data clearly show that markets work better than centrally planned (socialist) policies in creating economic growth and poverty reduction. .

But this is obvious to the intelligent non-scholars as well.

The Berlin Wall was not built to keep exploited workers of the West from streaming into the workers paradise found in Soviet controlled lands, the exact opposite is true.

Hundreds of thousand of North Koreas have been fleeing the “joys” of living in a society that does not believe in market economics to “suffer” in the land to the south where markets and prosperity reins.

More than a million Cubans have risked their lives to escape from the communist Utopia to live where markets rule.

But of course, you and Chomsky are smarter than all these people who have actually lived under socialist rule. You know what is best for others, although I am sure you, like Chomsky, are unwilling to live the life you advocate.

Hypocrites and idealists who refuse to acknowledge existing evidence.

BTW, I am actually now living in a socialist country, but one that is moving towards market economies. You can say I am a hypocrite for living in a society with a system I “disapprove” of, but I am here to help in the transition to a better life.

While either teaching or discussing economies, I have not had a single person who has lived under central planning make the claim that central planning works better than markets, even after hearing years of government propaganda.

Chomsky can fool those who know no other life how terrible American ideals, democracy and market-based economies are, but there are few who have lived without these values who believe him.

Accidental Ajarn

So have all you Chomsky supporters ready to admit the error of your ways, or are you going to insult the messenger for exposing your hero in a way you can not defend?

HermantheGerman

Milkman

Chomsky has written about and discussed numerous topics. They're complicated topics, where you can look at it from many angles. It's not all black or white. I don't agree with many of the things he says, but I agree with with many things he writes and talks about also. One topic in particular, is the media and how it's run.

This "for" or "against" Chomsky mentality is oversimplification.

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

sabang

It's a ways back in the thread, but no doubt you remember his being voted the worlds most important intellectual, and the most quoted man alive.

I've also told you that, whilst his politics are not my own, his exposes of what is really happening, or has happened, in various arenas such as Central America- often to a public reluctant or unwilling to believe- are Important. Yes, he is a dissident, and makes a special point of investigating US and Western abuses. Predictable that several don't like that, but you only need pick up a commercial newspaper to read what our reviled enemy of the day is doing bad.

I also find his political musings stimulating- I particularly like the way he exposes the semantic abuses of the new Right more adeptly than anyone else I can think of. Terms such as 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'.

He is an Important scholar, and an important dissenting voice. Whilst several in your (and my) society dislike him for his views, or exposes, he lives in safety in that society, and is free to have and express his views and findings. Thats important, too. So no point me making this personal against those US citizens that don't like him or appreciate his work.

If you fail to appreciate the Importance of Dissidence in general, and Chomskys work in particular, thats up to you, and frankly not really important. If however you advocate a society in which the likes of Chomsky should be silenced, that is important. I have no evidence that you do.

When it comes to Politics, and the nature of Power in general, I am definitely a cynic. I do not trust Politicians, their spin doctors or a compliant media to tell me the whole Truth- unless it suits them. History and current events prove my cynicism correct, repeatedly. Therein lies the importance of informed dissidence, and investigative journalism. It surprises, and slightly concerns me, how many people in our society are still quick to label any dissenting voice from the government of the day 'traitorous' or 'loonie'. In numbers, they are the dangerous ones- not Chomsky.

So don't expect me to continue debating the Importance of Noam Chomsky ad infinitum- it is already established, and I bore easily. Feel free though to tell us where he has been wrong where you can- this does not negate the importance of his body of work, no more than does the fact that Isaac Newton believed in alchemy negate the importance of his work. Who knows, I might even learn something, and you might too. Vapid right wing references to 'hating America' will not get you far in Issues though, outside of a predictable few.

__________________
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

sabang

You don't listen, do you. I have already pointed out that Chomsky is very much against central planning AA, in fact his politics are concerned with decentralisation of politics, economic planning and power in general. If you want to criticise his politics, at least learn something about them first.

Accidental Ajarn

“Ok, then explain to me why you find Chomsky's methodology convincing?”

No Answer

Is there a single negative aspect of the world that Chomsky does not blame on the USA?

No Answer

“What proof does Chomsky use to come up with his conclusions?”

No Answer

“What peers in academia?”

No Answer

“What criteria does Chomsky use to make his judgments?”

No Answer

“Why does he always come to the same conclusion regardless of issue?”

No Answer

“Please show me a single piece of Chomsky that is on political issues where the main conclusion he comes to in a piece is not to blame America for a problem.”

No Answer

Can you find one political writing of Chomsky that is not anti-American?

No Answer

“Who is this everyone you are referring to?”

No Answer

So, do you Chomsky supporters think you have convinced me of the error of my ways?

ItsRobsLife

^ You ask so many questions, but seem reluctant to hear the answers, why don't you read some of Chomsky's works yourself and find the answers you seek.
Maybe it will reinforce your belief or maybe it will open up new lines of thinking to you.
Even if you despise what he stands for it would be imprudent to not read his books, knowledge is power and to know the mind of your enemy is the greatest power of all.
I'm not too keen on those that fritter away our existence in the stock exchange, but that does not stop me reading Friedmans policies or the financial news to find out what they are up to.

Just a thought..

Chomsky is an American, who better to be critical of American politics than an American?
Who better to understand the culture and mindset of America than an American?

Yes he has a negative view of the American system,
but there are many more that would draw a positive conclusion to the same aspects that he highlights.

If you are an American shouldn't you be glad that one of your own citizens has the right,
and upholds those rights, to challenge the logic of the establishment?

If he was foreign he wouldn't have so much credibility and therein lies the problem for many of his critics,
he is American and he does know what he is talking about.

Many Americans assume the rest of the world has a negative image of them, and perhaps that is true in these times we live in, but many people respect the constitutional rights that Americans have and wish the same for themselves and their country.
It is sad that the country that lauds these rights is so reluctant to use them for anything other than law suits and rhetoric, America should stand for the values of Washington and Lincoln, but in many peoples eyes it now only stands for greed and death.

Chomsky is well regarded around the world and stands out as an American that is intelligent, objective and competent.
Surely then this man should be praised for his stance and his tenacity, his American spirit.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sabang

First lets seperate his real Books from his speeches to college audiences or whatever, and those books that are just transcripts of these speeches. His methodology is painstaking, heavily referenced, using primary sources where possible. Too academic for many a casual reader actually.

You might question the validity of his conclusions, or his opinions but hardly his methodology. Am I correct in assuming you've never read any of his Primary books?

Depends on the conclusions, doesn't it? For a conclusion that is ultimately an Opinion (Right/Wrong etc) there is no Proof, merely evidence and interpretation. Thats a tenet of epistemology. For conclusions that are provable (the US training Nicaraguan Contra's, that sort of stuff) he provides extensive proof, from Primary sources in most cases.

I will if I chance upon one, but it hardly consumes my waking hours. I doubt his 'America done good' list would be high on Google somehow. A rather trivial, self pitying question methinks.

His Peers in academia encompass the whole political spectrum, and are probably mostly apolitical anyway. What a strange question.

Anyway-

Accidental Ajarn

Sabang

You seem an intelligent enough fellow, but it is obvious you are not that familiar with “academic” research. I don’t claim to be to most knowledgeable guy on the subject but I am qualified to teach the subject at the graduate level and have done so

While there are some differences of opinion amongst scholars in what constitutes quality research, most scholars feel academic research should follow the “scientific” method or at least be objective and most research will likely consist of a hypothesis and a clearly defined method to test the hypothesis. Chomsky does not do this in any thing I have read of his. Chomsky is a pseudo-scholar, he makes his books appear scholarly, and with his fantastic command of the English language and his ability to persuade cause many non-experts to believe they are seeing the real thing. But experts are not fooled.

Don’t believe me, see what others say”

“For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia.”

Stefan Kanfer, America’s Dumbest Intellectual

http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=831

“The Chomsky defenders--and there seem to be a surprisingly large number of them--seem to form a kind of cult. Arguing with them seems to be a lot like trying to teach Plato's Republic to a pig: it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.”

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html


“All this purports to be political analysis, but Chomsky, it soon becomes evident, does not understand the rudiments of political analysis. Indeed, despite occasional pretenses of reasoned discussion, he is not much interested in the analytical process.”

Arthur Schlesinger Jr

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/schlesinger-chomsky.pdf
“Chomsky, in short, was caught using a technique he has often used since (I shall give further examples in later posts). He runs separate passages together, adding tendentious interpolation, in order to give a false account of the argument he claims to be presenting. It is intellectual dishonesty of a high order. If you are summarising someone else’s argument – especially an argument you are criticising – you are duty-bound to give an accurate account of it. Ellipses must not be used to omit relevant material; interpolations must be aids to clarity of exposition and not editorial devices; passages must not be shorn of context that would alter their meaning. Chomsky’s political writings are littered with violations of these conventions.”

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/chomsky_and_the_1.html

“Noam Chomsky is famous for his contributions to the infant science of linguistics; he is also famous for his denunciations of America, its government, its culture, its foreign policy and its allies. The two Chomskys are quite unrelated. The first writes clearly and eloquently, with a scrupulous respect for the principles of scientific discourse.

The second writes a seething and hectic prose, from which little of substance can be gleaned apart from the self-intoxicated anger of the writer, and which is marked by an utterly unscrupulous attitude to all arguments and opinions other than Chomsky’s own. “
Roger Scruton, The Times, UK,

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/scruton-chomsky.html

“Chomsky's analytic methods remain consistent from year to year, a triumph of cynical doublespeak.”

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/11b57339a643d96a?hl=en&

“Marxism is dead but Chomsky is still living Marxism. Noam said once, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them." You are correct, Sir! I have an offer that Noam should not refuse. If you stay away from economics and political theory, I will stay away from linguistics.”
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1132

“Amartya Sen famously posits that democracies, equipped with adversarial journalism and electoral opposition, avert all famines. Noam Chomsky posits that India's "experiment in democratic capitalism" has caused tens of millions of deaths by undernourishment in the subcontinent alone. And he claims this fact comes from the work of Sen”

Full Context: Fisking Chomsky: <i>The Crimes of Democratic Capitalism</i>

This is especially disgusting. Amartya Sen is one the truly great men of our generation and his influence has helped governments create policies that has helped hundred of millions out of poverty. Sen has deserving won the Noble Prize for economies and is respected and quoted by scholars with both left and right political orientations. Sen, while spreading the gospel of market-based economies, has worked tirelessly to make these policies work better to help the poor. To misrepresent this great scholars work to score political points amongst the uninformed is scandalous. But, that is Chomsky.



“His Peers in academia encompass the whole political spectrum”

Can you name a single respected professor of political science or economics who supports the methodology or conclusions of Chomsky? I can't, but I know a whole raft of them who think Chomsky is a joke.

AntRobertson

Do you teach your students to use the same logical and informal fallacies, misrepresentation and ad hominem techniques that you employ on here?

sabang

objective academia."

"For Chomsky, academics in capitalist societies tend to be ideological managers

who – usually unwittingly – shield the elite of which they are a part from serious
scrutiny by diverting attention from, or generating ideological rationales for, their
actions.Those with power will try to keep it, and those with power in capitalist
societies are primarily political elites and corporate conglomerates. Existing
institutions – including the universities and governments as well as the media –

function mainly to protect the interests of society’s elite."

"Analysis of Chomsky’s marginalisation by academia is worthwhile only to the extent that it contributes to academia facing up to its responsibility to acknowledge and end its active and passive participation in supporting elite interests."

from- Too polemical or too critical?
Chomsky on the study of the news
media and US foreign policy

ERIC HERRING AND PIERS ROBINSON*

Published in the 'Review of International Studies'

Mainstream academia is a joke, at least when it comes to political science and similar Humanities. Yes, I have been there. Even Economics (a slightly 'harder' discipline) is a joke- since the Chicago school became 'en Vogue' and the academic justification for deficit financing and other right wing chicanery, try to get some decent Economic education outside of the venerable LSE. Next to impossible- and now look at the results, they are with you right now.

You honestly think that Hired Academics are the real judge and jury of Chomskys more anti-establishment work? Particularly those known to be 'on the right'? Give me a break- a far better jury is prominence in modern history, and I tire of repeating the same old same old. Incidentally, there is much academic praise for Chomsky- I give it about the same credence as academic denigration for Chomsky. Unsurprisingly, any casual Google search will always reveal anti-Chomsky positions near the top of the list. Ever wondered why? Read 'Manufacturing consent" then- it's already prophesized and explained, how amazing.

Sorry, but academic praise or criticism of Chomsky is one of the least important measures of his relative importance that I can dream of.

Just to show the power of my cristal ball, I am psychic you know. Alain Dershowitz, Harvard law professor- I have never read anything by him about Chomsky. So, would he be pro or anti Chomsky? I'll not insult your intelligence by answering that question. I think you get my drift. In the Liberal arts in particular, 'Scholars' opinions are depressingly predictable.

I think you might find this thread stimulating AA-

http://teakdoor.com/us-domestic-issu...ein-story.html (Intellectual Hypocricy! The Finkelstein story.)

Accidental Ajarn

^
I don’t find it in the least interesting

Eric Herring, who you quote is nothing but a disciple of Chomsky and has wrote the following “objective” pieces ‘Between Iraq and a Hard Place: A Critique of the British Government’s Case for UN Economic Sanctions’, ‘The No Fly Zones in Iraq: The Myth of a Humanitarian Intervention’, ‘The Choice on Iraq: The UN's disarmament agenda or the US's overthrow agenda?’, ‘Power, Propaganda and Indifference: An Explanation of the Continued Imposition of Economic Sanctions on Iraq Despite Their Human Cost’ 'Iraq: The Realities of
Sanctions and the Prospects for War'

Just another leftist activist with an agenda supporting a fellow activist.

This is the guy who wrote,

"Mainstream academia is a joke, at least when it comes to political science and similar Humanities. "

Of course he thinks all of his "Peers" are wrong because the mainstream academia rejects his and Chomsky's methods. A recent survey of Acadmia in American whose results were reported in the Chronicle of higher Education showed Academics were far more lieberal in their voting patterns than America on average, and even in this biased lot, Chomsky and "dr" Herring have almost no support.

Sorry, good attempt but you failed

In fact, your posting supported my point. Your guy admits mainstream (respected) academia rejects Chomsky's methods and conclusions and only they and a few like-minded individuals know the "truth."

It is so nice when one's "opponent" in a debate support one's own position. Thanks

Accidental Ajarn

Sabang

You wrote

“His Peers in academia encompass the whole political spectrum, and are probably mostly apolitical anyway.”

Since this was shown to be wrong, you changed your tune and wrote

Sorry, but academic praise or criticism of Chomsky is one of the least important measures of his relative importance that I can dream of.

So, first you claimed Chomsky’s views were legit because he is a respected scholar, now you say it does not matter if he is a respected scholar of not.

Changing your tune pretty significantly when faced with evidence.

You got more than a little Chomsky in you, don't you? Now I can see why you approve of his "methodology" of floating facts and selective memory.

sabang

^ Given the obvious premium you attach to the opinion of the incumbent right and centre 'academic establishment' over prominence in modern history, being voted the worlds most important Intellectual, published work, being the worlds most quoted living man and other such trivialities, one could almost jump to the conclusion that you are one yourself ajarn.

I'm afraid your attempts to trivialise Chomsky are as effective as a paramecium infiltrating an elephant stampede. In the process, you also make rather obvious your political leanings. But I'm sure you'll find an appreciative audience somewhere.

For me, this is boring. I know who will denigrate Chomsky, I know who will idolise Chomsky. They are both equally uninspiring viewpoints.

Butterfly

Compared to Chomsky, we are all ignorant

He is God

sabang

^ The great man would chop you off at the knees for that idolatry BF.

Accidental Ajarn

"Compared to Chomsky, we are all ignorant

He is God"

Is this brillant piece of logic intended to convince anyone of your position?

sabang

Heres a Chomsky quote that can be twisted any which way, so all and sundry can get some mileage from it-

"We are all hypocrites."

Accidental Ajarn

This may be true, but some of us are bigger hypocrites than others, Chomsky by living a life that is totally at odds with what he preaches is pretty close to the top of the pile.