Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the financing of East Timor killings by Indonesia

That was the part I found most interesting, when the parallels and comparisons were made between the Khmer Rouge/Pol Pot genocide of the same time (and how US bombing of Cambodia was a factor in the rise to power of Pol Pot) with the Indonesian atrocities.

The differences in how the media presented one against the other was very telling.

Apart from the first 2 posts and post 24 the rest of this thread - including mine - is the song of the brain dead. Sing.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

He is a Libertarian Socialist, that's between Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism

Well, say no more, eh?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yep, bless those Pirate Bay lads and their flaunting of copyright. 'Tis here if anyone else is interested:

Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media avi (download torrent) - TPB

Downloading now. Thanks.

Here's a recent interview of Chomsky. I focused on the healthcare situation and the role of the pharmaceutical companies and financial institutions. The election, Iraq, and Iran, are also noted.

Comments and opinion?

News Americas
Chomsky: US public irrelevant

Chomsky says the US can learn something from Bolivia's democracy [GALLO/GETTY] Noam Chomsky, the renowned US academic, author and political activist, speaks to Avi Lewis on Al Jazeera's Inside USA.

They discuss whether the US election this year will bring real change, the ongoing conflict in Iraq and why Americans should look to their Southern American counterparts for political inspiration.

Avi Lewis: I'd like to start by talking about the US presidential campaign. In writing about the last election in 2004, you called America's system a "fake democracy" in which the public is hardly more than an irrelevant onlooker, and you've been arguing in your work in the last year or so that the candidates this time around are considerably to the right of public opinion on all major issues.
So, the question is, do Americans have any legitimate hope of change this time around? And what is the difference in dynamic between America's presidential "cup" in 2008 compared to 2004 and 2000?

Noam Chomsky: There's some differences, and the differences are quite enlightening. I should say, however, that I'm expressing a very conventional thought – 80 per cent of the population thinks, if you read the words of the polls, that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves not for the population [and] 95 per cent of the public thinks that the government ought to pay attention to public opinion but it doesn't.

As far as the elections are concerned, I forget the exact figure but by about three to one people wish that the elections were about issues, not about marginal character qualities and so on. So I'm right in the mainstream.

There's some interesting differences between 2004 and 2008 and they're very revealing, it's kind of striking that the commentators don't pick that up because it's so transparent.

The main domestic issue for years … is the health system - which is understandable as it's a total disaster.
The last election debate in 2004 was on domestic issues ... and the New York Times the next day had an accurate description of it. It said that [former Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry did not bring up any hint of government involvement in healthcare because it has so little political support, just [the support of] the large majority of the population.


But what he meant was it was not supported by the pharmaceutical industry and wasn't supported by the financial institutions and so on.

In this election the Democratic candidates all have [health] programmes that are not what the public are asking for but are approaching it and could even turn into it, so what happened between 2004 and 2008?
It's not a shift in public opinion - that's the same as before, what happened is a big segment of US corporate power is being so harmed by the healthcare system that they want it changed, namely the manufacturing industry.
So, for example, [car manufacturer] General Motors says that it costs them maybe $1,500 more to produce a car in Detroit then across the border in Windsor, Canada, just because they have a more sensible healthcare system there.

Well, when a big segment of corporate America shifts its position, then it becomes politically possible and has political support. So, therefore, you can begin to talk about it.

But those aren't changes coming from pressure from below?
No, the public is the same, it's been saying the same for decades, but the public is irrelevant, is understood to be irrelevant. What matters is a few big interests looking after themselves and that's exactly what the public sees.
And yet, you can see people agitating against the official story, even within the electoral process. There is definitely a new mood in the US, a restlessness among populations who are going to political rallies in unprecedented numbers.
What do you make of this well branded phenomenon of hope - which is obviously part marketing - but is it not also part something else?

Well that's Barack Obama. He has his way, he presents himself - or the way his handlers present him - as basically a kind of blank slate on which you can write whatever you like and there are a few slogans: Hope, unity …
Change?
Change. And it does arouse enthusiasm and you can understand why. Again 80 per cent of the population thinks the county is going the wrong way.
Chomsky: Understandable that Obama is generating "enthusiasm" [Reuters] For most people in the US the past 30 years have been pretty grim. Now, it's a rich country, so it's not like living in southern Africa, but for the majority of the population real wages have stagnated or declined for the past 30 years, there's been growth but it's going to the wealthy and into very few pockets, benefits which were never really great have declined, work hours have greatly increased and there isn't really much to show for it other than staying afloat.

And there is tremendous dissatisfaction with institutions, there's a lot of talk about Bush's very low poll ratings, which is correct, but people sometimes overlook the fact that congress's poll ratings are even lower.
In fact all institutions are just not trusted but disliked, there's a sense that everything is going wrong.
So when somebody says "hope, change and unity" and kind of talks eloquently and is a nice looking guy and so on then, fine.
If the elite strategy for managing the electorate is to ignore the will of the people as you interpret it through polling data essentially, what is an actual progressive vision of changing the US electoral system? Is it election finance, is it third party activism?

We have models right in front of us. Like pick, say, Bolivia, the poorest county in South America. They had a democratic election a couple of years ago that you can't even dream about in the US. It's kind of interesting it's not discussed; it's a real democratic election.

A large majority of the population became organised and active for the first time in history and elected someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that everyone knew about – control of resource, cultural rights, issues of justice, you know, really serious issues.

And, furthermore, they didn't just do it on election day by pushing a button, they've been struggling about these things for years.
A couple of years before this they managed to drive Bechtel and the World Bank out of the country when they were trying to privatise the water. It was a pretty harsh struggle and a lot of people were killed.
Well, they reached a point where they finally could manifest this through the electoral system - they didn't have to change the electoral laws, they had to change the way the public acts. And that's the poorest country in South America.
Actually if we look at the poorest country in the hemisphere – Haiti - the same thing happened in 1990. You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do this, it's ridiculous to say we can't.

The Democrats in this election campaign have been talking a lot, maybe less so more recently, about withdrawing from Iraq.

What are the chances that a new president will significantly change course on the occupation and might there be any change for the people of Iraq as a result of the electoral moment in the US?

Well, one of the few journalists who really covers Iraq intimately from inside is Nir Rosen, who speaks Arabic and passes for Arab, gets through society, has been there for five or six years and has done wonderful reporting. His conclusion, recently published, as he puts it, is there are no solutions.
This has been worse than the Mongol invasions of the 13th century - you can only look for the least bad solution but the country is destroyed.
The war on Iraq has been a catastrophe, Chomsky says [AFP] And it has in fact been catastrophic. The Democrats are now silenced because of the supposed success of the surge which itself is interesting, it reflects the fact that there's no principled criticism of the war – so if it turns out that your gaining your goals, well, then it was OK.
We didn't act that way when the Russians invaded Chechnya and, as it happens, they're doing much better than the US in Iraq.
In fact what's actually happening in Iraq is kind of ironic. The Iraqi government, the al-Maliki government, is the sector of Iraqi society most supported by Iran, the so-called army - just another militia - is largely based on the Badr brigade which is trained in Iran, fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war, was part of the hated Revolutionary Guard, it didn't intervene when Saddam was massacring Shiites with US approval after the first Gulf war, that's the core of the army.
The figure who is most disliked by the Iranians is of course Muqtada al-Sadr, for the same reason he's disliked by the Americans – he's independent.

If you read the American press, you'd think his first name was renegade or something, it's always the "renegade cleric" or the "radical cleric" or something - that's the phrase that means he's independent, he has popular support and he doesn't favour occupation.

Well, the Iranian government doesn't like him for the same reason. So, they [Iran] are perfectly happy to see the US institute a government that's receptive to their influence and for the Iraqi people it's a disaster.
And it'll become a worse disaster once the effects of the warlordism and tribalism and sectarianism sink in more deeply.

Link: Al Jazeera English - Americas - Chomsky: US public irrelevant

he spanked bill buckley in televised debates. no small feat.

Originally Posted by obsidian

he spanked bill buckley in televised debates. no small feat.

Buckley must have been off his game then...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by obsidian

he spanked bill buckley in televised debates. no small feat.

Buckley must have been off his game then...

Boon,

These debates are on youtube. You can find them easily.
Some took place in 1970. Good picture and sound quality.
Watch them first, then you decide.

Good thread BF. Chompsky is one of my favorite writers/speakers. Anyone into this sort of thing should consider reading Jello Biafra's works as well (not just his punk music but his political activism.)

^ never read him, however the long documentary and listening him speak was for me of great interests. Like I said, very accessible. Yes his reading should be required for every ignorant souls on this planet, not only American.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Yes his reading should be required for every ignorant souls on this planet, not only American.

My god BF! Have you lost your mind? Are you really recommending two Americans have something intelligent to say to the rest of the planet? How can this be when we all know merkins are such an ignorant lot!

^ believe it or not, some of most brilliant political thinkers and socialists actually come from the US

They could teach Europe a thing or two

I once drove after work from middle of nowhere Missouri to Madison Wisconsin to watch Biafra, Chris Novacelic and Ingram Newkirk speak on the spitfire tour then made the drive back to middle of nowhere to return to work. Brilliant stuff with the exception of the PETA crap. Hypocritacally enough I drove my SUV to the event and ended up with hate messages written in the collected dust on the windshields while parked in the lot for driving an SUV.

On another note one of the threads on this forum (think it had something to do with beheadings in S.LOS) got me to reading the World Human Rights Watch publications, some interesting and saddening stuff there.

Three cheers for Chomsky.
An accessable way for people to understand Anarchism.
Nice thread thanks

Should have recomended something I guess.
Class Warfare The Attack On The Working Class.
The book shop just up from the UN Irish pub in CM have a few books of his.

Chomsky is a complete fucking hypocrite. He lambasts capitalism while enjoying living in a capitalistic society with all of its advantages. He has constantly used his right of free speech to support regime after regime that does not allow it. During the 70s, he claimed all American reports about Cambodia were lies and all reports by the Khmer rouge were true. He (and other so called academics who wouldn’t know a piece of empirical evidence from their assholes) supported the Khmer Rouge, long after evidence was clear that horrors were being conducted, and called all victims that escaped the massacres liars until evidence became so overwhelming that he finally had to backtrack.

Yeah, brilliant?

How so? Because he has been wrong in the past about everything he has predicted? Such as socialism would overcome capitalism, Khmer Rouge would turn the country of Cambodia into Nirvana, etc…

Maybe it is because he can articulate a position and convince non-critically thinking individuals without using any reliable or valid evidence?

I think he is a fucking fruitloop, well-spoken, but his knowledge of the world and critical thinking skills are completely absent.

Fucking apologist for murderous regimes just because those regimes happen to follow the misguided path of socialism. And some of you guys claim he is brilliant? You guys have some low standards of respect for intellectual ability and logic.

^ I would like to see you provide evidence and Link these allegations Ajarn.

Chomsky was a vocal dissenter against the VN War. History seems to have proved him right, but it was this more than anything that caused him to be demonised as a firebrand radical (which he is not) in mainstream USA.

Then he went on to publicise, to a largely ignorant west, the abuses that were happening in Central America- Nicaragua, El Salvador & Guatamala in particular- and the US supporting role in these atrocities. History most definitely proved him right here- and the stamp of those years is quite apparent in the politics of todays Central America.

Ditto the extent of the 'Communist' massacres in Indonesia, and western involvement in this (such as the CIA producing extensive lists of Communist sympathisers- in reality Labour organisers- that were marked for liquidation). At least 500,000 were slaughtered.

To me this is his greatest importance- telling us stuff, with academic integrity and thoroughness, that our political establishment wanted(s) the public not to be aware of, facts they tried to suppress. The mainstream media dutifully acquiesced- Chomsky did not. If you add to this alone his books 'Understanding Power' and 'Manufacturing Consent' (amongst others) he is rightfully considered one of the most important, and honest, intellectuals in the world today.

He is always open to a public debate, and in his quiet, bookish style blows his 'Opponent' out of the water. Not even in the same league- because he will only debate that which he has researched thoroughly. Would any intelligent person seriously believe a politicians hyperbole over Chomskys primary research? A sad indictment of the state of modern politics.

^&^^

Likewise I'd like to see some of those accusations substantiated with evidence.

Frankly it strikes me as either a perversion, misterpretation, misunderstanding, or outright distortion of Chomsky's position(s). In the first paragraph alone you've made several blatantly untrue claims.

You guys can start off with

http://jim.com/canon.htm

Chomsky's idea of analysis was to accept any evidence, no matter the source or reliability, that fit into his world view while rejecting any evidence, regardless of source or methodology to obtain the evidence, that oppossed his leftist worldview.

No one with any type of normal to advanced critical thinking ability would accept any of Chomsky's arguments. Chomsky is not a scholar as he rejects the scientific method and the use of empirical evidence, he is a propagandist.

Brillant?

Only if one has very very low standards.

^ Where in this paper or thesis mention of what you describe? I'm not challengin you, AA, but I cannot find it. A Ph.d AT M.I.T. ought to have some quality sources when he forms an opinion. Where is what, you are talking, about? Thanks.

AA, thanks for the article but you need a link. I will read it in full, when you post a link. You have to post a link in Issues.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

USA is that country is so evil and communism is so great

Chomsky is a major critic of Communism actually- he compares the system as it evolved to State totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

free markets work better than central planned economies

So I believe, but Chomsky does not advocate centrally planned economies. He describes himself as a syndicated anarchist. His style of politics involves devolving power as much as possible to local bodies, with wide participation and power sharing in the political process. Government by local committee, if you like. He believes centralisation of power inevitably leads to abuse of power and corruption.

Thats his politics, which you can agree or disagree with. His credentials as a scholar are hardly in question- add to my brief resume' above his original academic credentials as a Linguistic scientist, and his important work here. This alone makes him an important Academic anyway.

Just because he told people what many of them did not want to hear does not make him wrong- he has been overwhelmingly proven right. What you can read as mainstream history now was considered close to treason when he first told the world about it.

Even if he has been wrong on a particular point or observation (which you have yet to establish), this does not discredit his body of work either. I, like yourself, note the grudging respect for Chomsky in the article you quoted above AA. It's premise however falls well short of even partially discrediting his massive body of work- this being to find Some (Any) Point that his research or reporting has been questionable or even wrong on, and then use that Point (whether established or not) to discredit the whole body of his work by implication or innuendo. It is a widely used technique, used by all sectors of the Political divide, and it fools none but the most naive of debaters- normally those who's myopic world view it agrees with.

An open minded read of Chomsky is an excellent cure for Myopia- you don't have to agree with his Politics.