Noam Chomsky on Vaclav Havel

[aerocontrols]

Check it out (http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_02_23.html#1674)

I'll take a single Havel over a thousand Chomskys, thanks.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Though I cannot comment on the debate, as I dislike fundies and the guy did sound like a spiritualist....

I must say that I find Chomsky to be extreme and stretch credulity. According to Chomsky the US is the most evil nation in the world...though it allows Chomsky the ability to operate freely.

Likewise Chomsky has made statements in the past to the effect that a Native American tribe of about eight hundred lived for hundreds of years without ever having problems with rape,murder or theft.....yeah right. Chomsky should stick to linguistics and leave history to Jared Diamond.

[corplinx]

Chomsky who? Never read him, never cared to. Never read his critics.

[Mike B.]

Perhaps you should Corplinx.
There are a few on this forum who take every single word of his inane rantings as gospel truth.

Look at this latest gem:

"East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."

In this he is comparing the current US installed terror regimes in Eastern Europe like in the Czech Republic.:confused:

Now I have been in Poland. Let me say the Russians in Poland were about as popular as "the clap."

I guess I missed all the Lithuainians protesting for the Russians to stay in their country as well...hmmmmmmmmm

But it doesn't matter, Chomsky knows because he is as much as a fundamentalist as any religious person.

[shemp]

The thought of Noam Chomsky on Vaclav Havel is making it difficult to keep down my dinner.

[Goshawk]

For Corplinx, for some rainy Saturday afternoon with absolutely nothing else to do.

The Noam Chomsky Archive...
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm
Welcome! Noam Chomsky is one of America's most prominent political dissidents. A renowned professor of linguistics at MIT, he has authored over 30 political books dissecting such issues as U.S. interventionism in the developing world, the political economy of human rights and the propaganda role of corporate media...His MIT home page.
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/chomsky.home.html

[corplinx]

Another academic who has never worked a real job or been on the wrong end of an ass beating I take it?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
Another academic who has never worked a real job or been on the wrong end of an ass beating I take it?

lol

JK

[fidiot]

Originally posted by shemp
The thought of Noam Chomsky on Vaclav Havel is making it difficult to keep down my dinner.

hahah

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Perhaps you should Corplinx.
There are a few on this forum who take every single word of his inane rantings as gospel truth.

Look at this latest gem:

"East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."

In this he is comparing the current US installed terror regimes in Eastern Europe like in the Czech Republic.:confused:

Now I have been in Poland. Let me say the Russians in Poland were about as popular as "the clap."

I guess I missed all the Lithuainians protesting for the Russians to stay in their country as well...hmmmmmmmmm

But it doesn't matter, Chomsky knows because he is as much as a fundamentalist as any religious person.

you didn't even read the sentence, it has been taken out of context, and makes a pertinent point, if you have the intelligence to undertand it. At least argue the point he was making, not the one he has been accused of making.

The point was, that Vietnam under american 'occupation' was a lot worse than czechoslovakia was under the USSR. That is, a country at war in which over a million people died is a lot worse than a country that is at peace, even if it is occupied by an unwanted power, without the war.

The american tactic appears to have been, we had to destroy the country to save it, even if they couldn't actually win the war.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by corplinx
Another academic who has never worked a real job or been on the wrong end of an ass beating I take it?

As we all know, political acumen is directly proportional to how many years you've worked as a welder, farmer, electrician or other real job; and the number of times you've been beaten up in dark alleys.

This whole "blue-collar reverse snobbery" is rather silly - especially since its proponents tend to be at least as dismissive of academics as they claim academics are of practical experience.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
you didn't even read the sentence, it has been taken out of context, and makes a pertinent point, if you have the intelligence to undertand it. At least argue the point he was making, not the one he has been accused of making.

The point was, that Vietnam under american 'occupation' was a lot worse than czechoslovakia was under the USSR. That is, a country at war in which over a million people died is a lot worse than a country that is at peace, even if it is occupied by an unwanted power, without the war.

The american tactic appears to have been, we had to destroy the country to save it, even if they couldn't actually win the war.

The full sentence was "It's also unnecessary to point out to the half a dozen or so sane people who remain that in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."

IIRC the South Vietnamese requested American military aid, which initially was supposed to consist of little more than the availability of US military advisors to the South Vietnamese forces, but developed into a full military engagement.

Chomsky's assertion that the Soviet cosh was preferable to an undefined US "tyranny" is nonsense. Just ask the people who hads to live in this "paradise", which was the point Mike was making.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by a_unique_person:


The full sentence was "It's also unnecessary to point out to the half a dozen or so sane people who remain that in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."

IIRC the South Vietnamese requested American military aid, which initially was supposed to consist of little more than the availability of US military advisors to the South Vietnamese forces, but developed into a full military engagement.


Yeah, right......

There was supposed to be a democratic vote on re-unification. The 'South' Vietnamese were merely a colonialist construct that occured when the French were kicked out. If the vote had been taken, everyone knew the vote would have been for re-unification of North and South with the dreaded North in charge.

The South, such as it was, was largely represented by the colonialist rump of Vietnamese who supported the French, hardly the sort of people to get popular support.

The invitation for the US was from the person the US made president. Kind of a circular arrangement.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
Yeah, right......

There was supposed to be a democratic vote on re-unification. The 'South' Vietnamese were merely a colonialist construct that occured when the French were kicked out. If the vote had been taken, everyone knew the vote would have been for re-unification of North and South with the dreaded North in charge.

The South, such as it was, was largely represented by the colonialist rump of Vietnamese who supported the French, hardly the sort of people to get popular support.

The invitation for the US was from the person the US made president. Kind of a circular arrangement.

So the French are to blame? So why hasn't Chomsky addressed inate imperialist tendancies on the part of the French as motivating their present stance on Iraq?

[headscratcher4]

The US War in Vietnam, it seems to me, was misguided and to fight it we (the US) supported many un-democratic elements and engaged in very questionable actions -- actions that in many ways directly contradicted not only our stated goals in the country, but our stated values.

Having said this, context -- it seems to me -- is also important. Yes, the US supported "reactionary" forces, yet at the same time the Russians were crushing democratic and freedom movements throughout Eastern Europe -- Poland, E.Germany and Hungary comes to mind. Further, Mao was concentrating his own governance of China and laying the groundwork for famine and disaster that ended up in the deaths of millions.

My point is not to excuse US failings, but to suggest that there were more horrible things going on in the world. Now, you can look at the Vietnamese situation and argue that the North was a liberation movement and a reunification effort. All likely true. However, these were not democrats and they were not -- and as importantly did not -- create democratic institutions. It is hard to argue that the re-education facilities etc. established by the victors were somehow better, more humane or gentler to victims than the various practices of the South regime or its US patrons.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions fled "democratic" united Vietnam both because of the regime, as well as because of their work with/for the US and the South regime.

Today, Vietnam is a one party state where dissent is persecuted, where party hacks dominate the system, the beauracracy stifles both creativity and innovation, and there is little hope of real reform. As importantly, this was always the likely outcome of the North's victory and reunification effort -- given its underlying allegiance to Leninist and Stalinist methodology and thinking.

Now, while there was little that was good or admirable about the South or US involvement in that Civil war, it strikes me that there is nothing particularly good or admirable about the current situation in Vietnam -- save that it is "unified". Perhaps that is enough. Perhaps the US effort that stifled "unification" is in itself sufficiently evil to merit condemnation.

In any event, Vietnam, Haiti, Guatemala, etc. can all be used to demonstrate the US's ham-handed and often misguided policies.

I only note -- and am not sure how to place it in context -- that at the time when US supported governments and actions were resulting in the torture, death and repression of hundreds of thousands, actions taken by the USSR, China, etc. was resulting in repression and deaths of millions. This is not to excuse misguided policies of the US and its allies, nor is it intended to suggest that many questionable interests directed US policy. Rather it is to suggest that as bad as US policy could be, there was and is real evil out there in the form of dictatorships and systems that use terror not merely as an instrument of control, but at basic state policy -- Saddam, not the least.

Just some, likely misguided if not erroneous observations --
__________________--

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


As we all know, political acumen is directly proportional to how many years you've worked as a welder, farmer, electrician or other real job; and the number of times you've been beaten up in dark alleys.

This whole "blue-collar reverse snobbery" is rather silly - especially since its proponents tend to be at least as dismissive of academics as they claim academics are of practical experience.


You took that line wayyyyyyyyyyyy too seriously.

[Barkhorn1x]

...is that you only get half the story - and you can bet that the US is the villian of the piece.

He has a point and speaks the truth you say - well yes he does - but his special version of the truth. And he uses his linguistic expertise to good effect to distract the reader/listener from the shallowness of his arguments.

So, in the end, he must be dismissed for his strident anti-American (anti-Israel) statements that are w/o context or a sense of proportion.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Just some, likely misguided if not erroneous observations --
__________________--

Very nice post with good points and some not negligeble thought behind it.

NA

Just a likely misguided if not erroneous review.

[rikzilla]

Good post HS4...

I think you should repost it over at the "Is Communism Dead?" thread. ;)

As far as Chomsky goes...the man is simply wrong. In error. Lost.

Who can forget his prediction that the US military would kill millions of innocent Afghans in October 2001?? The man is blinded by his own anti-American biases.

-zilla

[corplinx]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Who can forget his prediction that the US military would kill millions of innocent Afghans in October 2001?? The man is blinded by his own anti-American biases.

-zilla

I judge political acumen not by people talking about the past, but their ability to predict the future based on their "acumen". Sounds like Chomsky fares about as well as a psychic though.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Who can forget his prediction that the US military would kill millions of innocent Afghans in October 2001?? The man is blinded by his own anti-American biases.

-zilla
The US effectivly cut off food for millions of Afghans during the onset of winter by closing the Pakistani border for food transports before and during the war. If the war had lasted longer then millions would have perished, yes. Chomsky didn't "predict" anything, he just stated what I just wrote.
(the "prediction" is available here: http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm)

[Skeptic]

The point was, that Vietnam under american 'occupation' was a lot worse than czechoslovakia was under the USSR. That is, a country at war in which over a million people died is a lot worse than a country that is at peace, even if it is occupied by an unwanted power, without the war.

Gee, that's funny.

When the North Vietnamese were fighting to "free" South Vietnam from the Americans, or the Arabs are fighting to "free Palestine" from the existence of the jews, all of a sudden Chomsky doesn't think that they are morally required to stop fighting and accept their position as "occupied" because a bad peace is better than a good war.

It is ONLY when the Americans (or the jews, or the western world, or its supporters in general) are fighting against communist and/or religious tyrrany that the fighting suddenly becomes "immoral", and therefore the "right thing to do" is to have "peace"--that is, surrender to the tyrant.

Chomsky (like you) does NOT oppose war or violence per se; he only opposes war when democracies or freedom-loving people fight back against opression. As long as it is some insane kleptocratic theocracy (or marxist "paradise") that's doing the fighting, Chomsky is all for it. Tyrants have a "right" to fight; democracies have no right to fight back. This is Chomsky's "enlightened" position.

Of course, Chomsky had never hated America enough, or loved Marxism enough, to actually LEAVE America and move to one of the marxist paradises he keeps talking about, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, or North Korea. Which means that even he, deep down, doesn't believe his own bulls--t.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

IIRC the South Vietnamese requested American military aid, which initially was supposed to consist of little more than the availability of US military advisors to the South Vietnamese forces, but developed into a full military engagement.

The "South Vietnamese" being the oppressive dictatorship that had the dishonour of topping Amnesty Internationals list of worst users of torture in the world while it existed.
In the 50s and early 60s the "South Vietnamese" had mobile guillotines* adorned with decapited heads of it's victims working around the countryside to stop people from getting funny ideas about controlling their own lives.


* a guillotine is a machine used for chopping peoples heads off.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The point was, that Vietnam under american 'occupation' was a lot worse than czechoslovakia was under the USSR. That is, a country at war in which over a million people died is a lot worse than a country that is at peace, even if it is occupied by an unwanted power, without the war.

Gee, that's funny.

When the North Vietnamese were fighting to "free" South Vietnam from the Americans, or the Arabs are fighting to "free Palestine" from the existence of the jews, all of a sudden Chomsky doesn't think that they are morally required to stop fighting and accept their position as "occupied" because a bad peace is better than a good war.

It is ONLY when the Americans (or the jews, or the western world, or its supporters in general) are fighting against communist and/or religious tyrrany that the fighting suddenly becomes "immoral", and therefore the "right thing to do" is to have "peace"--that is, surrender to the tyrant.

Chomsky (like you) does NOT oppose war or violence per se; he only opposes war when democracies or freedom-loving people fight back against opression. As long as it is some insane kleptocratic theocracy (or marxist "paradise") that's doing the fighting, Chomsky is all for it. Tyrants have a "right" to fight; democracies have no right to fight back. This is Chomsky's "enlightened" position.

Of course, Chomsky had never hated America enough, or loved Marxism enough, to actually LEAVE America and move to one of the marxist paradises he keeps talking about, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, or North Korea. Which means that even he, deep down, doesn't believe his own bulls--t.

I was not arguing that I agreed with chomsky on this at all. I was just trying to point out what he said, not what he was accused of saying.

When I asked a cambodian refugee once what he liked most about australia, his answer was not the fact that it was peaceful, wealthy, sunny etc. He said freedom was what he valued most. This made me think a bit. It also made me wonder about the palestinians a bit more.

[stamenflicker]

Chomsky is without a doubt out on a crazed political limb. But let's not forget what this man has given us in the field of linguistics. Earth-shattering material on phonology and knowledge coding, sub-texts and meaning, and media construction. He is without a doubt one of the most intelligent souls to have ever lived.

He too often assumes the worst though... that's a lack of an attribute called wisdom, no reflection on his genius.

Flick

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I was not arguing that I agreed with chomsky on this at all. I was just trying to point out what he said, not what he was accused of saying.



Then why are you posting in his defense? Chomsky claims he DEPLORED the actions of the Stalinists and North Vietnamese. So why doesn't he list grievances against them, only against America? I think I know why! He may claim to deplore something equally, but if you read what he says, you'll see he's just a dumb old commie. He supported Pol Pot, by listing American crimes against the Cambodians. But did he ever speak up for the millions Pol Pot killed?

You CLAIM to not necessarily agree with Chomsky. Your actions prove otherwise. Just like your mentor. Be proud... Or not.

-Ben

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by bangdazap:
The "South Vietnamese" being the oppressive dictatorship that had the dishonour of topping Amnesty Internationals list of worst users of torture in the world while it existed.
In the 50s and early 60s the "South Vietnamese" had mobile guillotines* adorned with decapited heads of it's victims working around the countryside to stop people from getting funny ideas about controlling their own lives.

I wonder who it was introduced the Vietnamese to the guillotine?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Then why are you posting in his defense? Chomsky claims he DEPLORED the actions of the Stalinists and North Vietnamese. So why doesn't he list grievances against them, only against America? I think I know why! He may claim to deplore something equally, but if you read what he says, you'll see he's just a dumb old commie. He supported Pol Pot, by listing American crimes against the Cambodians. But did he ever speak up for the millions Pol Pot killed?

You CLAIM to not necessarily agree with Chomsky. Your actions prove otherwise. Just like your mentor. Be proud... Or not.

-Ben

RTFP. I was saying if you are going to attack him, do it for a reason, not for the something he never said.

[Drooper]

To my mind, Chomsky must be one of the most overrated "intellectuals" on the planet.

This very argument is a straw man.

It makes no more sense to criticise Havel's favourable view of America, given their conduct in Europe than it does to chastise a "Vietnamese villager's" view based on US conduct of the Vietnam war.

Chomsky needs to watch the Life of Brian.

"What have the Romans ever done for us..?"

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


RTFP. I was saying if you are going to attack him, do it for a reason, not for the something he never said.

What a laugh.

Chomsky's a loon. There's that old saw about there being a thin line between genius and insanity....Chomsky waltzes back and forth across that line like a 3rd grader doing the hokie-pokie.

Just because he's a genius does not mean he's more moral than the rest of us. I'm sure Mother Theresa was nowhere near as smart as Chomsky....and no matter what Chomsky or his sycophants think....he's nowhere near as moral as the good mum. Smart does not equal good. Chomsky is an ass with an anti-American agenda.

-z

[Mike B.]

I think what Chomsky is really mad at is an intellectual like Havel who lived through the "Prauge Spring" and all that happened because of it does not buy Chomsky's fundamentalist views about worker's paradises.

I mean Chomsky knows(not someone who lived through it) that Havel must be wrong...

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Chomsky is without a doubt out on a crazed political limb. But let's not forget what this man has given us in the field of linguistics. Earth-shattering material on phonology and knowledge coding, sub-texts and meaning, and media construction. He is without a doubt one of the most intelligent souls to have ever lived.

He too often assumes the worst though... that's a lack of an attribute called wisdom, no reflection on his genius.

Flick

His linguist chops serve his political sophistry well as I've posted elsewhere.

And, unfortunately, his exalted intellectual status has provided him w/ far too wide an audience for his anti-American agitprop.

This is a phenomenon we see far too often - an expert in one field declaiming as an authority in another. How else to explain the political "activism" of a Sean Penn, a Susan Sarandon or a Pat Robertson.

Again unfortunately, the media just lap it up. :mad:

Regards,
Barkhorn.