Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Here is a good example of Chomsky getting it right?

"Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence."

Chomsky lies: denial of the Khmer Rouge holocaust in Cambodia.

Most in the thousands and mostly in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence? Oh, yes now I see his brillance! All no Khmer Rouge Cambodians have lied all these years and only Chomsky from the safety and security of his highly paid tenure-track position in the USA where his freedom of speech is assured is right.

He used only the evidence that supported his simplistic theory of "America bad - all enemies of America good" while completely ignoring the mountain of evidence that was available at the time that contradicted his assertations.

I am hardly alone in my opinion

“Noam Chomsky skittles and skithers all over the political landscape to distract the reader’s
attention from the plain truth.”
- Sidney Hook
(The Humanist, March-April 1971)
“In his ideological fanaticism he constantly shifts his arguments and bends references,
quotations and facts, while declaring his ‘commitment to find the truth.’”
- Leopold Labedz
(Encounter, July 1980)
“Even on the rare occasions when Mr. Chomsky is dealing with facts and not with fantasies,
he exaggerates by a factor of, plus or minus, four or five.”
- Walter Laqueur
(The New Republic, March 24, 1982)
“After many years, I came to the conclusion that everything he says is false. He will lie just
for the fun of it. Every one of his arguments was tinged and coded with falseness and
pretense. It was like playing chess with extra pieces. It was all fake.”
- Paul Postal

(The New Yorker, March 31, 2003)

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe
under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”

Letter reprinted in Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is In Us (Verso, 1995), pp149-51.

Any of you guys who claim he is brilliant and was an anti-communism want to defend this?

“Internal [Soviet] crimes abated [after 1945]; though remaining very serious they
were scarcely at the level of typical American satellites, a commonplace in the Third World,
where the norms of Western propriety do not hold.”

World Orders, Old and New (Columbia University Press, 1996), p39.

If the Soviet Union was so great, why did it die away and why didn't Noam ever go live it that paradise?

“[Regarding] China’s actions in Tibet… it is a bit too simple to say that ‘China did
indeed take over a country that did not want to be taken over.’

Letters, New York Review of Books, April 20, 1967.

WTF was he smoking?

“Also relevant is the history of collectivization in China, which, as compared with
the Soviet Union, shows a much higher reliance on persuasion and mutual aid than on force
and terror, and appears to have been more successful.”

American Power and the New Mandarins (rev. ed., The New Press, 2002), p137n56.

“The Truth: Its culmination was the Great Leap Forward, the worst man-made catastrophe in
history, in which 30 million died”

Basil Ashton, Kenneth Hill, Alan Piazza, Robin Zeitz, “Famine in China, 1958-61,” Population and
Development Review, December 1984, p614.

“In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have
been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam. This miracle of reconciliation and
restraint… has been almost totally ignored.”

The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (South End Press, 1979), p28.

No one with any knowledge of post war Vietnam, even committed leftists, would give any credence to this statement

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

Need more? We could go on all day about the lies and mistakes of the “brilliant one.”

Leftist? Sure Propagandist? Sure Hypocrite? Sure Scholar? Hardly

Chomsky is an idiot - end of story...

^

Yes, but as the famous showman was reported to have said, there is a sucker born every minute.

Chomsky has made millions living in a capitalistic society by slamming his own lifestyle.

ANd the gullible eat it up.

Someone once called his writing, Anti-Americanism for dummies. Good label.

That he remains popular and "respected" by some shows the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in Western educational systems.

Someone once called his writing, Anti-Americanism for dummies. Good label.

It's not really. Chomsky's not anti-American. That's merely a convenient label that his detractors use to slur him. Why bother addressing the actual issues and points that he raises when you can dismiss them with one label? If this were a few decades earlier he'd be accused of being a 'Commie'.

That he remains popular and "respected" by some shows the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in Western educational systems.

Any good educational system should teach critical and independent thought. Are you suggesting that because every child is not rote taught that Chomsky's 'wrong' (i.e. concur with your line of thinking) that this is somehow a failing?

^

He, Chomsky argues like a lawyer, not a scholar. He only uses "evidence" that supports his arguements and does not objectively analysis information.

Chomsky first comes to a conclusion, and then finds ways to sell the idea.

If you want to believe, go for it. Pay your hard earned money to make the anti-capitalist Chomsky even richer.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

^

He, Chomsky argues like a lawyer, not a scholar. He only uses "evidence" that supports his arguements and does not objectively analysis information.

Chomsky first comes to a conclusion, and then finds ways to sell the idea.

If you want to believe, go for it. Pay your hard earned money to make the anti-capitalist Chomsky even richer.

What a bizzare series of accusations. Chomsky is a scholar, not a lawyer. And even if that were true, that he "argues like a lawyer", you seem to be missing the point that lawyers can't just ignore the evidence that they don't like; they'd never win a case otherwise.

And you seem to be hung-up on the issue of how much Chomsky makes. Me personally, I've never paid a single cent to him. Would you care to expand on this? Exactly how rich is Chomsky?

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Chomsky has made millions living in a capitalistic society by slamming his own lifestyle.

I sense quite a few TD posters do the same.
They're anti-everything. They're pessimistic and bearish on the world. Their only solace is that America is worse. As long as they keep up that rhetoric, they live to whine another day.

What a miserable way to go through life.

they live to whine another day

Irony be thy name.

^

You appear to be a true believer.

Fine.

Being a believer of leftist ideology is like being religious. Since there is no hard empirical evidence to support this way of thinking, one just has to take it on faith. Chomsky is one of your prophets. Chomsky, as far as I have ever seen, has never referred to any quantitative studies in his writings. Sure, in any issue as complicated as political science one can always find anecdotal evidence to support any position. But using only one-side of the story is not likely to get to the truth.

I have given you a few of Chomsky’s statement that show he was a keen supporter of communism throughout the 60s through he 80s, I could give you hundreds more.

As far as his wacked out 9/11 conspiracy themes, or his anti-Jewish propaganda, well what can you say.

Arguing against leftists is like trying to convince people that it is highly unlikely there are little green men flying around in UFOs around US military bases. Arguments about the lack of evidence of life in our solar system and near the near impossibility of the ability to break the laws of physics which would be needed in order to travel the distances that life would need to in order to visit us on Earth do not go down well with true believers

Believe what you want, belief is not what scholars work with, we work with evidence.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

they live to whine another day

Irony be thy name.

I'm not whining. I rather enjoy being a member of a capitalist society, with democratic freedoms and the ability to make choices of my own. I have no problems with electing leaders who employ smooth talking PR campaigns to make them appear better than the other candidate. Yes, we're all aware this goes on. No, we're not being misled or duped.

You seem to prefer the gentle, pipe-smoking old man who lives in the log cabin up on the hill to lead you to the promised land, making your fairy-tale nirvana come true. When did you check out of reality?

I see no reason why I should walk around bashing myself in the head everyday and demand everyone else I meet be equally apologetic. Just ain't going to happen.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

^

You appear to be a true believer.

True believer? It's not a question of faith or religion...

Being a believer of leftist ideology is like being religious. Since there is no hard empirical evidence to support this way of thinking, one just has to take it on faith. Chomsky is one of your prophets. Chomsky, as far as I have ever seen, has never referred to any quantitative studies in his writings. Sure, in any issue as complicated as political science one can always find anecdotal evidence to support any position. But using only one-side of the story is not likely to get to the truth.

I have given you a few of Chomsky’s statement that show he was a keen supporter of communism throughout the 60s through he 80s, I could give you hundreds more.

As far as his wacked out 9/11 conspiracy themes, or his anti-Jewish propaganda, well what can you say.

Arguing against leftists is like trying to convince people that it is highly unlikely there are little green men flying around in UFOs around US military bases. Arguments about the lack of evidence of life in our solar system and near the near impossibility of the ability to break the laws of physics which would be needed in order to travel the distances that life would need to in order to visit us on Earth do not go down well with true believers

Believe what you want, belief is not what scholars work with, we work with evidence.

I'm sorry but that's a load of unmitigated bollocks. All you've done to this point is level unsubstantiated accusations - and refused to provide evidence of those you've been queried on - and now you're telling me that "leftist ideology is like being religious"?? I suppose then that 'rightist' ideology is somehow not.

Believe it or not but I'm old enough and intelligent enough to think for myself. Chomsky's no prophet of mine; I agree with some but not all of what he says. I've read and studied his work and taken on-board that which strikes me as being correct.

All you are doing, in effect, is telling me that's 'wrong' without actually addressing the issues. I mean here I am suddenly being called on to defend my stance because you've erected a strawman. It's called intellectual-dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

they live to whine another day

Irony be thy name.

I'm not whining.

Could've fooled me. You've taken an opportunity in a thread discussing Noam Chomsky to have a pop at other posters.

You seem to prefer the gentle, pipe-smoking old man who lives in the log cabin up on the hill to lead you to the promised land, making your fairy-tale nirvana come true. When did you check out of reality?

This isn't about me, Tex. Your continued ad hominem does you no credit and betrays you.

"I've read and studied his work and taken on-board that which strikes me as being correct."

There is your problem. What do you base your decision to accept or reject his "theories?" What evidence does he use to back up his conclusions?

Ok, I do know a bit about academic research and maybe it is very easy for me to spot the flaws in the lack of methodology used by Chomsky, but I would think an intellegent layman could see this as well. Chomsky only uses selected ancedotal evidence to support his theories, it doesn' take a scholar to see through that type of logical reasoning.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding.

Chomsky is living in a capitalistic country where he lives in high style. He has chosen the path his writings slam instead of the life he advocates. He doesn't even believe the nonsense he writes, but he knows how to market and make profits off the gullibility of others.

He has made himself into a brand and sold that to others who want easy answers but like chomsky, have no real convictions.

Chomsky gives words of rebellion to those who are enjoying the fruits of what they are "rebelling" against.

Chomsky was a strong supporter of socialism, which history shows has failed.
But he has been able to rebrand himself for a new generation of wanna-be political activists without real conviction or knowledge.

How much evidence do you want?

I gave you a few quotes and links to hundreds of others where it shows where Chonmsky got it wrong (Or lied outright in many cases). If you want to believe in your prophet, nothing I can say or write will convince you otherwise.

Here is how one of todays top scholars views Chomsky's methodology.

Huntington commented on Chomsky’s claims thus (NYRB, 26 February 1970):

It would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dishonest instance of picking words out of context so as to give them a meaning directly opposite to that which the author stated. For the benefit of your readers, here is the "obvious conclusion" which I drew from my statement about the Viet Cong: …the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist. Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation.
By omitting my next sentence — "Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation"—and linking my statement about the Viet Cong to two other phrases which appear earlier in the article, Mr. Chomsky completely reversed my argument. (Incidentally, the phrase "direct application of mechanical and conventional power" is not mine, but one which I quote from Sir Robert Thompson. Mr. Chomsky, however, does not see fit to recognize these distinctions of authorship.)
Mr. Chomsky's further effort to say that I favor demolishing Vietnamese society and "eliminating the people" in order "to crush the people's war" is totally false and misleading. My article described the urbanization produced by the escalation of the war between 1965 and 1968 and the extent to which this "American-sponsored urban revolution" undercut the "Maoist-inspired rural revolution." It concluded from this fact that peace would require compromise and accommodation on both sides. To eliminate Viet Cong control in the areas where they have been strong, I said, "would be an expensive, time-consuming and frustrating task." Instead of attempting this, we should aim at a political reintegration of the country which "clearly will depend, however, upon the recognition and acceptance of Viet Cong control of local government in these areas. It is here that accommodation in the most specific sense of the word is a political necessity." This is, in a nutshell, the thesis of the article, and it is well reflected in its title, "The Bases of Accommodation," which Mr. Chomsky somehow forgot to mention.

Chomsky’s Totalitarian Apologetics

By Paul Bogdanor

The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights, Volume I. By Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. South End Press, 1979.

The pseudo-scholarly appearance of this book - replete with quotations and footnotes - should fool no-one: this is a work of propaganda, in which American allies are furiously attacked and communist dictatorships relentlessly excused. Perhaps its most noteworthy feature is the assertion that “Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world” (p16), although not one of the reactionary crimes cited by the authors amounts to even a microscopic fraction of the tens of millions who had just been massacred or starved to death in the People’s Republic of China or the millions who were dying at that very moment at the hands of communist tyrants in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, let alone the countless victims of near-genocidal Soviet client regimes, from Ethiopia to Uganda.


Chomsky's Totalitarian Apologetics

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

"I've read and studied his work and taken on-board that which strikes me as being correct."

There is your problem. What do you base your decision to accept or reject his "theories?" What evidence does he use to back up his conclusions?

How is that a "problem"? My opinions are just as valid as yours and it's very presumptious of you to discredit them on the basis of some arbitrary standard that you're applying. For every critique you find of Chomsky I can point to one in support so copious cut 'n pastes are redundant and a waste of time.

And you yourself are guilty of that which you're accusing others. For, just one representative, example:

Chomsky is living in a capitalistic country where he lives in high style. He has chosen the path his writings slam instead of the life he advocates. He doesn't even believe the nonsense he writes, but he knows how to market and make profits off the gullibility of others.

Unsubstantiated guff. How can you know what he believes or doesn't let alone say he doesn't believe what he writes? Where is your "academic research"? And you've still not answered the question; what is your fascination with his earnings? Do you even know what he earns?

How much evidence do you want?

Well more than the unsubstantiated allegations, inferences, and leaps of logic would be a good starting point.

If you want to believe in your prophet

For the second time, he is not my prophet. Indulging in this sort of labelling betrays a lack of intellectual-honesty. You're labelling both me and him to give yourself a target to attack. A 'strawman', in the colloquial.

The Acc.Ajarn is right(tongue firmly in cheek)
He says "we work with evidence"
Lets look around us and the state of the world which has been dominated by predominantly by more right wing Govts.
Prices soaring, ancient conflicts unresolved ,banks wavering,corruption rampant throughout.All firmly under the guidance of the Fed Reserve I.M.F and Oil....no socialists there!
The evidence is the hunger and misery of war,and continued ineptitude and inability by the supposed leaders of this planet to adapt to a changed world,instead,desperately clinging onto old belief systems with ferverent righteousness,and damn the consequences...maintain the status quo!!!
Well thats my rant..thanks

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

“But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable… a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry…”

I hardly see any evidence of him supporting communism. He is just describing a situation about Communism, which by the way is very true. Early days communism was all about brotherhood, camaraderie etc... quite a positive thing actually. Saying something had a positive point is hardly giving that thing full support. Ex: Bush killed Saddam Hussein. That's a good thing. But I don't support him, he deserve a bullet in the head for being a stupid trailer trash fuckwit and a mass murderer. See my point ?

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

“One might argue, at least I would argue, that council communism... is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society.”
(Government in the Future [Seven Stories Press, 2005], p27)

Since when opinions of others is an indication of someone being a communism ? do you support witch hunting because this is basically what you are demonstrating here ?

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

the lack of critical thinking skills

Yes, you seem to suffer from this.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Chomsky argues like a lawyer

and rightly so, as we should all. Lawyers didn't invent the technique btw, it's called rethoric, and is based on critical thinking and comprehension analytical techniques. You can always google it and learn.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

You appear to be a true believer.

You seem to be one yourself, venting and making noises without making a case or addressing any issue with which you disagree. If you can't understand Chomsky, maybe you should stop repeating what you heard on Faux News and start maybe reading a few of his books to make your own EDUCATED judgement.

Originally Posted by Texpat

I'm not whining.

That will be a first

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

How much evidence do you want?

You have shown none for now. I am afraid you are too uneducated and too ignorant to show any evidence or have a serious discussion about Chomsky.

I am obviously not the only one who finds Chomsky making a fortune by opposing capitalism ironic.

Keep buying into Chomsky’s load of BS, after all Chomsky is laughing all the way to the bank about the gullibility of his followers.

http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/10/noam_chomsky_is.html

One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest one percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor — like eighty percent of the population — pay off the rich.”
But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp
Lopez: Tell me the great hypocrisy of that greatest of all public intellectuals according to one recent depressing survey: Noam Chomsky.
Schweizer: Noam Chomsky thinks he's the Moses of this age and even those on the Left who don't agree with him on everything accept his moral authority. But Chomsky is a socialist who practices capitalism, and an anti-militarist who has made millions off of Pentagon contracts. Wonder what his followers would think of that? Then there is his constant lecturing about "tax gimmicks" and "tax shelters" that "the rich" use to avoid paying their "fair share." He must have forgotten about that when he set up his tax shelter.

Lopez: And he wasn't a lot of fun when you got in touch with him, was he?
Schweizer: I give credit to Chomsky for responding to my questions. His excuses were something to behold. No wonder he teaches linguistics. It's amazing how he twists his words. By the way, he said it was okay to criticize other rich people for setting up trusts and setting one up himself. After all, he explained, he's been fighting for poor people his whole life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_as_I_Say_(Not_as_I_Do):_Profiles_in_Liberal_Hyp ocrisy
Notable issues that Schweizer addresses in the work are Noam Chomsky's acceptance of money from prominent institutions whose policies he opposes (such as the Pentagon), living in an expensive home, and his visitation of socialist states such as Cuba. Schweizer, in the rest of the work, makes similarly-toned accusations against individuals the book focuses on, particularly surrounding political issues such as environmentalism, labor, and taxation. After the book's publication Chomsky talked to Schweizer about his creation of a trust fund for his daughters and grandchildren.[1] In Schweizer's follow up discussion with Chomsky, Schweizer reveals that even though Chomsky abhors corporations and refers to them as "fascist", Chomsky's own retirement fund is invested in large capitalization NYSE companies and the TIAA-CREF stock fund. Schweizer points out: "A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it."[1]

Butterfly

Thanks for demonstrating the intellectual capacity of the average member of the modern left.

AA, did you actually read his books ? or at least listening to his work ? or are you just repeating some BS you heard ?

AA,

Look, we’re getting nowhere fast here. You seem to be equating "academic research" with the copious cut 'n pasting of others work that you’ve Googled.

All fine and well; but read into and alongside your inference that others who hold a contrary opinion are a bit thick and your reliance on labels to shift the posts it's not very convincing.

As far as I can see, to this point your rote response to a direct question is to ignore it, repeat your claims, and cut 'n paste even more.

^ yeah, the trademark of Boon Mee and friends, maybe another shared troll ?