Print Page | Close Window

Noam Chomsky

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Rate Scientists and Thinkers
Forum Discription: Talk about the scientists and thinkers and rate them!
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31494
Printed Date: 07-Jul-2022 at 13:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Noam Chomsky
Posted By: Toltec
Subject: Noam Chomsky
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2012 at 01:59
The most respected American intellectual and philosopher in the world. He's uncovered historical incidents from the past and done research to depth that shames the best historians.  But instead of me explaining I'll let him talk for himself.
 
Chomsky explains the lie of the free market and how democracy really works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA
From about 1 hour point he talks about the future of the internet


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /



Replies:
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2012 at 02:32
Chomsky is really great, not only as a social philosopher, but as a linguist; he is one of the most important, /not to say the most important/ philosopher of the late 20th century and our time.

-------------


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2012 at 05:05
I voted for "weak", he seems to be abnormal, especially on his political views.

-------------


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2012 at 14:10
Though I am only generaly aware of his linguistics achievements,  I voted for "good".  I am suspiscious of leftist academics and my bias  probably kept me from checking "great". 


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2012 at 14:33
An anarchist-libertarian socialists-anti-Semite's intellectuals (feigned or others) best friend. He is master linguist no doubt.....should have stayed there. Because in the end, his attempt to shadow Russell and Dewey have merely id' him the failure he is international realpolitik. The Mullahs of Iran adore the guy...that says it all.
 
'Bad' isn't there...so he doesn't get a rating.


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2012 at 19:24
I have to admit I know his linguistic works and his subsequent influence of psychology of cognition best, since this is my lane; I know his works on "political lingo" and find it very fitting and true for the communist political world I was raised in.

Anyway, his basic political stance is very close to that of my beloved Russian anarchists, and as such carries little practical value, since anarchism was never fit to be a practical system, but more of an idealistic corrective to what realities are - something to keep the boat from turning over, not to row with. I may disagree with many things he states, because they are too idealistic, and if put in practice would be total disaster, but I enjoy reading him anyway. He is far from original in his political stance though, while in his linguistic/psychological work he really broke ground on many levels.

I suspect  that in time, say 50-100 years from now whatever political stuff he was into will be forgotten, while his works or linguistic, grammar and psychology will be still important. Time has a way of weeding out what it's of real value, and what can be used later.


-------------


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2012 at 23:36
Whatever his contribution to linguistics, and it is presently under attack from some quarters, I must judge him as a polemicist rather than a serious historian. He denied the Cambodian holocaust while it was on-going, then denied that he ever denied it. So, as Don Q had noted, any chance he has for his reputation surviving into the future will depend upon how well his work on linguistics stands the test of time. Even if overturned, he will be remembered for having stood out in his era.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2012 at 23:52
I don't see him as a historian at all, but as a social studies mixed-bag author - linguist, psychologist and analytical philosopher.
"Polemicist" is a good definition when it comes to his articles like the ones on the Gaza problems, collected in "Gaza in Crisis" - he is not striving for lack of emotions and cold objectivity as a historian would, be writes more like a lawyer in a trial - emotionally charged and making parallels that may be too shallow and with a certain orientation.

I know that he is seen here as leftist - I don't understand enough  the right-left dichotomy here, so I cannot come up with a relatively sane opinion on that; but what he writes about the US and the political lingo fits exactly for the political lingo in communist countries - and since communism is supposed to be "left" I can't see him as a leftist....I suppose this is some kind of irony or cultural myopia on my side, I'm not sure.


-------------


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2012 at 10:32
Originally posted by Don Quixote


I suspect  that in time, say 50-100 years from now whatever political stuff he was into will be forgotten, while his works or linguistic, grammar and psychology will be still important. Time has a way of weeding out what it's of real value, and what can be used later.
Very well said.


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 11:49
Originally posted by lirelou

He denied the Cambodian holocaust while it was on-going, then denied that he ever denied it.
 
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

anti-Semite's
 
 
Only if you're both advocating Conservapedia as a ligitimate academic source.
 
On Cambodia he published everything he ever wrote on Cambodia on his website, read through and find a single thing you mention, then get back to me.
 
As for anti-semitism, he backs absolute freedom of speech, the price of this is racist people getting to say racist things, French people saying French things, tolerating cats meowing and fascists getting to dis Jews. Believing the benefits of freedom of speech outweight the negatives isn't antisemitism. In Germany they jail holocaust deniers, in the UK we don't, we refute them with evidence. Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 13:51
It was interesting or me what Chomsky said about Iran's Green Movement, I searched and found it from Iranian website: http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/mar/chomsky-irans-green-movement - http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/mar/chomsky-irans-green-movement
 
Read comments:
 
Chomsky is not a shrwed scientist or anything that honorable. He is an anti American; far left wing ideologue. He wants a result {always anti American} then uses his abilities justify it. 
Unfortunately these guys get a lot of attention. Otherwise a dog barking has more logic in it than Chomsky. He has no regard for lives of people. Just wants to see USA fail. A real face of the so called "peace" movement.
 
Mr. Chomsky, do you have difficulty recalling that since coming to power the regime of the Islamic Republic has repressed Iranians with or without any "external threat?" Is it your age or your prejudice against Iranians which disallows you to see things clearly? Blaming things on "external threats" may be used to curtail political activities of all kinds, how do you justify lack of social and cultural freedoms under the brutal rule of IR for the past three decades? Shame on you, Mr. Chomsky! This is not about your bankrupt linguistic theories where you accuse your critics of misunderstanding them. We are talking about tens of millions of human beings here!
 
The man is really an idiot!


-------------


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 14:54
Originally posted by Toltec

 
As for anti-semitism, he backs absolute freedom of speech, the price of this is racist people getting to say racist things, French people saying French things, tolerating cats meowing and fascists ran getting to diz Jews. Believing the benefits of freedom of speech outweight the negatives isn't antisemitism. In Germany they deny holocaust deniers, in the UK we don't, we refute them with evidence. Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?

There cannot be an absolute freedom of anything, speech included, because freedom without responsibility is very dangerous. I don't see letting Neo-Nazis doing their "thang" as freedom of speech, this is propagadation of a merciless ideology, and denying of the Holocaust is taking away the lessons of history and possibly setting the scene for another Holocaust.

Whoever wants freedom of speech has to have the utmost responcibility toward what he/she is saying, ig one doesn't have this responcibility, he/she doesn't deserve this freedom. If I come to your home and start burning mummies of your wife and kids in your yard, and threaten your family, etc, and shout slogans full with hate, this wouldn't be freedom of speech, but abuse of it - and every abuse is to be stopped, this is only the responsible way.

In other words, Neo-Nazism and refuting any Holocaust has as much to do with freedom of speech as rape has to do with love - rape is to be forbidden, not allowed on some excuse that it's "freedom of expression" - the same thing with hate speech, and with refuting the deaths of millions of human beings - if it exists, its abuse, not freedom, and doesn't deserve toleration.

Besides, I know what lack of freedom of speech is - I was raised in a communist country. Whoever thinks that there isn't enough freedom of speech here, didn't really live in a highly centralised censored society, to really compare both.


-------------


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 16:52
Truth remains as far as I am concerned, Toltec's rejection of the obvious aside..Chomsky, like Alinsky were and remain anti-semitic in the classicist interpretation and were defacto neo-communists...bewildered and dismayed when that system devolved into a strongman and subsequent oligarchy of power driven by and for sought self gain... and did what was necessary to perp and maintain it.
 
Such is.. and will remain the delusion of the socialist. As they fall to the fascist.....look at Sweden for a current executive example...and Amerika as well.
 
The socialist remains the dupe of the totalitarianistic. period. an honest and object review of the historical developement and record, unless willingly denied and obsfucated, can not be refuted.
 
But alas..... covert or overt..feigned intellectualist or other... they all seek their comfort zone.Wink


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2012 at 23:57
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

 
 
Chomsky is not a shrwed scientist or anything that honorable. He is an anti American; far left wing ideologue. He wants a result {always anti American} then uses his abilities justify it. 
Unfortunately these guys get a lot of attention. Otherwise a dog barking has more logic in it than Chomsky. He has no regard for lives of people. Just wants to see USA fail. A real face of the so called "peace" movement.
 
Mr. Chomsky, do you have difficulty recalling that since coming to power the regime of the Islamic Republic has repressed Iranians with or without any "external threat?" Is it your age or your prejudice against Iranians which disallows you to see things clearly? Blaming things on "external threats" may be used to curtail political activities of all kinds, how do you justify lack of social and cultural freedoms under the brutal rule of IR for the past three decades? Shame on you, Mr. Chomsky! This is not about your bankrupt linguistic theories where you accuse your critics of misunderstanding them. We are talking about tens of millions of human beings here!
 
 
Quoting a couple of idiots making stuff up about what he says isn't an argument against him, it's a misunderstanding at best and laziness to bother to learn what he really says at worst.


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: okamido
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 00:47
Put up some of his wonderful works, Toltec. I might be interested in ripping them to shreds.Smile 

-------------


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 00:49
There is no need to use labels, they usually don't improve the character of a discussion.

I have to admit though that I listened to the videos twice and didn't understand why Chomsky received the said commentsConfused . I didn't see anything anti-Green-Iranian-Movement, what he said is that the Us can erase Iran is they want so, and that it would be lunacy - how is that anti-Green-Iranian-Movements? How is a possible US attack on Iran going to improve the lives of the people there? Do the Iranian people want a war with US, thinking that this will give them liberty? Chomsky is saying that if pressure be applied on Iran, the regime will stagnate even more, and this will not help the democratic movements. He says "if we really want to help the democratic movement, as we should, we should be trying to relax the international tension".

Btw, I think there is reason in that - all totalitarian regimes uses external threat to mobilize their own  people, that why the Cold War was godsend for USSR in keeping the Eastern Europe under the curtain; in the absence of such a threat such regimes can invent one just for propaganda uses. I don't think though that relaxing external pressure will help at all - it probably will give Iran the feeling that they have card blanche for what they want to do. Anyway, repressive regimes tend to fall at some point - it took the communist system 45 years to fail economically and break down naturally, but finally this did happen; Chomsky is right when he said that sooner or later repressive regimes fall down because of popular uprising of their own people, and showed deep admiration for whoever is leading and participating in the Green Movement - how is that anti-itConfused?


-------------


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 01:51
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Truth remains as far as I am concerned, Toltec's rejection of the obvious aside..Chomsky, like Alinsky were and remain anti-semitic in the classicist interpretation and were defacto neo-communists...bewildered and dismayed when that system devolved into a strongman and subsequent oligarchy of power driven by and for sought self gain... and did what was necessary to perp and maintain it.
 
Such is.. and will remain the delusion of the socialist. As they fall to the fascist.....look at Sweden for a current executive example...and Amerika as well.
 
The socialist remains the dupe of the totalitarianistic. period. an honest and object review of the historical developement and record, unless willingly denied and obsfucated, can not be refuted.
 
But alas..... covert or overt..feigned intellectualist or other... they all seek their comfort zone.Wink
 
Chomsky is an anarchist (in your right wing definition, a libertarian that supports the minimal state) so putting up an example of an authoritarian state as an example seems to be a misunderstanding or a strawman... If you wish to oppose his arguments please tell me why ayou support a large state?
 
As for fascism, this is a political label, the economics term for this is the corperate state. Fascism is when the corperations and government join together to rule a country. Think of a country where the politicians receive funds from corperations? Where the parties are funded by corperations, where the news on politics is reported by corperations, where 90% of the wealth is owned by corperations, where the foriegn policy is to promote the interests of corperations, where the central bank is a corperation, where the monitary system is controlled by corperations, there wars are conducted for corperate gain and where almost all decisions made by the corperate funded politicians are in the interest of corperations........ This is a corperate state, fascism.
 
As for antisemitism, let alone providding an example you haven't even given a definiton.
 
 


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 02:01
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Originally posted by Toltec

 
As for anti-semitism, he backs absolute freedom of speech, the price of this is racist people getting to say racist things, French people saying French things, tolerating cats meowing and fascists ran getting to diz Jews. Believing the benefits of freedom of speech outweight the negatives isn't antisemitism. In Germany they deny holocaust deniers, in the UK we don't, we refute them with evidence. Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?

There cannot be an absolute freedom of anything, speech included, because freedom without responsibility is very dangerous. I don't see letting Neo-Nazis doing their "thang" as freedom of speech, this is propagadation of a merciless ideology, and denying of the Holocaust is taking away the lessons of history and possibly setting the scene for another Holocaust.

Whoever wants freedom of speech has to have the utmost responcibility toward what he/she is saying, ig one doesn't have this responcibility, he/she doesn't deserve this freedom. If I come to your home and start burning mummies of your wife and kids in your yard, and threaten your family, etc, and shout slogans full with hate, this wouldn't be freedom of speech, but abuse of it - and every abuse is to be stopped, this is only the responsible way.

In other words, Neo-Nazism and refuting any Holocaust has as much to do with freedom of speech as rape has to do with love - rape is to be forbidden, not allowed on some excuse that it's "freedom of expression" - the same thing with hate speech, and with refuting the deaths of millions of human beings - if it exists, its abuse, not freedom, and doesn't deserve toleration.

Besides, I know what lack of freedom of speech is - I was raised in a communist country. Whoever thinks that there isn't enough freedom of speech here, didn't really live in a highly centralised censored society, to really compare both.
 
John Stuart Mill in on Liberty gives supports absolute freedom of speech, notes all your objections and answers them. If you suppress unpaleatable views you may allow them to fester and grow. One thing about these views is they always contains grains of truth, this then allows the people advocating these views to ignore the false bits, point to the truth bits and gains support by showing the truth is being suppressed. If you bring them into the public you can address them, seprate the truth from the falsity.
 
An example would be rightwing groups say blacks are more likely to commit crimes because of their race, the proof is the disproportinate number of blacks in prison. If I suppress this opinion, the right wingers could simply say I am suppressing them from saying more black are criminals, and their view will gain creedence. If I allow them to say their view I can then address it, say it's true more blacks are in prison but your racist views are wrong, the reason behind this is because they grow up in deprived areas where the rate of white criminality is the same.


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 02:23
Ok, I agree with that - taking all kinds of views to discuss them, that's good; what I was talking against is not discussions, but hate speech, act and slogans, because with them you can't converse, then just come on you like waves.
I have Mill somewhere but I haven't read him yet, most lamentably, thanks for the reference.

-------------


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 02:29
Originally posted by Toltec

Chomsky is an anarchist (in your right wing definition, a libertarian that supports the minimal state)
 

That's right, that's why don't see his as a leftist at all, I wrote on that.
As for antisemitist - I don't see him like this either, he is disagreeing with the methods with which Israel suppresses a possibly viable Palestinian state, with the settlements that cantonize the so called "Palestinian territory", not that he opposes the right of Israel to exist.


-------------


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 04:06
Originally posted by okamido

Put up some of his wonderful works, Toltec. I might be interested in ripping them to shreds.Smile 
 
I did in the OP, here it is again, rip away................
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 04:13
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Originally posted by Toltec

Chomsky is an anarchist (in your right wing definition, a libertarian that supports the minimal state)
 

That's right, that's why don't see his as a leftist at all, I wrote on that.
As for antisemitist - I don't see him like this either, he is disagreeing with the methods with which Israel suppresses a possibly viable Palestinian state, with the settlements that cantonize the so called "Palestinian territory", not that he opposes the right of Israel to exist.
 
Trouble is in the US not supporting fundementalist zionism and agreeing that 100% of Palestinian lands can and should be taken away from them and the population ethnically cleansed means your anti-semite. A defintion which makes half of Israelis and almost all non-American Jews anti-semites too.


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 15:50
Toltec, let me see, you are referring me to Noam Chomsky's website to see 'everything he's ever published on Cambodia'? Isn't that a bit like going to Newt Gingrich's website to obtain everything he's ever written on a subject? That requires a level of trust in either that I lack.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 21:31
Originally posted by Toltec

Originally posted by okamido

Put up some of his wonderful works, Toltec. I might be interested in ripping them to shreds.Smile 
 
I did in the OP, here it is again, rip away................
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA

 I listened to the talk, and most lamentably I think the facts are quite right. I would like someone to prove him wrong, I'd feel better. I'm not sure about his statements that US's main aim in Iraq is to suppress democracy there, but the facts about Haiti and Iran, AFAIK, are quite right.


-------------


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 22:40
I like this talk Chomsky did in Oslo, I like it because it underlines what Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Syndicalism as a branch of Anarchism is, what are the institutions that are suggested in it, and a short history of the Spanish Anarchism that was destroyed by Communists exactly because it was coming together quite successfully. The most important part is that the dramatic difference between Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Syndicalism and Socialism and Communism are; since I here so much the Chomsky is leftist, which I don't think is correct, because the Anarchism he is talking is is actually direct democracy, which is the complete opposite of Communism.
[TUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y&feature=related[/TUBE]


-------------


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 22:51
Originally posted by lirelou

Toltec, let me see, you are referring me to Noam Chomsky's website to see 'everything he's ever published on Cambodia'? Isn't that a bit like going to Newt Gingrich's website to obtain everything he's ever written on a subject? That requires a level of trust in either that I lack.
 
Did you apply the same high standards of scrutiny with the source of information for the accusation you made?


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 22:53
Originally posted by Don Quixote


 I listened to the talk, and most lamentably I think the facts are quite right. I would like someone to prove him wrong, I'd feel better. I'm not sure about his statements that US's main aim in Iraq is to suppress democracy there, but the facts about Haiti and Iran, AFAIK, are quite right.
 
I like the bit about him showing that government's relationship to big bisuness is that of a socialist system.


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 02:47
Yes, state socialism. I had seen a lot of this in communist Bulgaria - factories that produce what there is no market for, or are returned due to their low quality, and were supported artificially; the ginormous bailouts that Obama made here are exactly such a socialist feature.

Here an interview Chomsky gave, I like his musing on the psychological effects of state endorsed consumerism as a form of control, and his thoughts on globalism.
[TUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAGtExCOudo&feature=related[/TUBE]



-------------


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 23:00
Toltec, in your boy's own words:

"
Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press treatment, we would like to point out that apart from Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. 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 and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf. Chomsky: At War with Asia, on the problems of interpreting reports of refugees from American bombing in Laos). Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."

You can find it here:          http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

Now, notice how carefully he (the royal 'we') did that: Citing others, but reinforcing the idea that reports of genocide "on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries" were overstated, exaggerated, are in all likelihood wrong.

For the record,  I equate Chomsky to L. Ron Hubbard, and Chomskyites to Scientologists.

   


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 23:29
Thank you for the info and the source, lirelouSmile. However your link came out dead - to make it alive you have to click on the little icon left of the smiley face, the one with globe and a bow, and paste the url inside, then click on ok.

I'm not trying to defend Chomsky in the case, obviously he commited a blunder; just I want to remark that no history is objective - we see it through very different POVs, and everyone, consciously or not, roots for something; so the only honest way to deal with historical representations, as far as I can see, is jut to admit that no one is fully objective and look for the reality somewhere in the middle.

I don't know the Scientologists well enough to give an opinion for on your comparison, but I mentioned before, that anarchism is an ideal, like Christianity - it cannot be really put in practice, because of many reasons, mostly the reality of life, that will not allow it; at best it can be used a something like a marker as to where we are and how we are doing compared with the ideal plan of how we wish things to be. Anarchism is based on the idea that human beings can livbe in harmony, collectivistic, and share choices and responsibilities, not taking in account that life itself is antagonistic, and the actions like accumulation of goods, strive for power, etc, are part of the survival instinct, if one is to lose those, one dies really fast, eaten by others.


-------------


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2012 at 00:13
To illustrate my above point, I'll post one of Chomsky's lectures with a humble commentary by yours truly:
[TUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PdJ9TAdTdA&feature=related[/TUBE]
The lecture starts with the very founding of the US, which was thought by the founding fathers as a 'nascent empire", goes through what he calls "genocide of the Native Americans" /to which I'll say that there isn't nation, culture or population on the world that wasn't genocided at one or another point, that's just part of the circle of life/ , continues with the Manifest Destiny and goes on blasting every involvement of the US win world politics as being imperialistic, making it sound as only US in the whole history of humanity behaves like that - while obviously is just a human pattern of existence, which goes on the natural Darwinian lines. Every country and culture dreams of being a world power, not everyone becomes, but this is not because they wouldn't do that if they could, but because they couldn't do that in the first place for whatever reasons.

He goes on blasting the idea that US is not some fortress of justice, /like anyone above the age of 14 can really believe that this is so/, and that it behaves like Great Britain, USSR, etc, imperialistic in their time powers - and? This is what any country would do if they can, because this is an instinct for survival on a state level. If and when US cannot do it anymore, someone else will, an maybe in far more cruel way. It's not like when US steps down there won't be another superpower, because superpowers always existed, and always will, this is a  part of the natural selection. It sounds awful, but this is what it is - life is based on power, and if one survives it's because more or less one fought back, stole back, killed back and raped back - committing all those things to survive.

The same thing with the globalisation /which he defines as taking the work from the poor to give it to even poorer, which is quite true/, and proposes all why not instead the top 3% of people with highest standard, /like himself/, give up some of their ridiculously luxuries and give them to the poor countries in a form of capital so they develop their own industry; well, because this will never happen - people strive to accumulate, not to give up, this is survival instinct, hence is undestrictible. What he proposes is simply impossible, not part of life, can exist only in dreams. What people can do is protest against what they see as wrongly done, and win a right or two, but this is all, there is no more.

He says that US is not a real democracy - well, it's not, its' a representative democracy; a real, direct democracy existed only in Classical Athens, and left out like 2/3 of the population of Athens anyway, in the shape of women and slaves. All other democracies after that were in teh best representative ones, which is not much of a democracy, because the ones elected never live up to their promises, so in fact whoever elected them has no control over them. It's a little better in small towns, there is more conrol over what local people one elected, but not on large scale. Why? Because it physically cannot be done on a large scale. So, beyond the realization that life sucks, that the poor are poor and the rich are rich everywhere, and that no rich will give what they accumulated to the poor, on no scale, what is all the fuss about, one may ask?

 The fuss is that in his lectures Chomsky shows that US is not a nation of blue-eyed romantics and behaves like everyone else under the sun all across the map and along the time scale - which is not a surprise to anyone. US gives millions in aids - Chomsky says that it's all to keep control over whoever gets it - and? There is no free lunch, and of course no one does anything for someone else only for their blue eyes, they do it to get something out of it - friendships and marriages are all based on that, even in out most intimate relationships we participate because we get something out of it; so why should anyone give aid and want no influence, and this on a state level? What he wants is impossible to put in reality, if it was possible, would be great, but it's not. Now, I'm, saying this as an amateur anarchist....ideals are great, one can try to put something from them in practice, but keep in mind that it cannot work in it's pure form.

But I enjoy him anyway - he is thought provoking, and I don't necessarily have to agree with anyone to enjoy what they have to say.



-------------


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2012 at 05:37
Originally posted by lirelou

Toltec, in your boy's own words:

"
Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press treatment, we would like to point out that apart from Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. 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 and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf. Chomsky: At War with Asia, on the problems of interpreting reports of refugees from American bombing in Laos). Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."

You can find it here:          http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

Now, notice how carefully he (the royal 'we') did that: Citing others, but reinforcing the idea that reports of genocide "on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries" were overstated, exaggerated, are in all likelihood wrong.

For the record,  I equate Chomsky to L. Ron Hubbard, and Chomskyites to Scientologists.

   
 
 
 
 
This is a case of moving the goal posts.
 
In your original post you made the claim
 
1. He denied the Cambodian Holocaust
2.  and denied he denied it. 
 
Your quote above shows him disputing the actual number of executions.
 
 
 
Originally posted by lirelou

Whatever his contribution to linguistics, and it is presently under attack from some quarters, I must judge him as a polemicist rather than a serious historian. He denied the Cambodian holocaust while it was on-going, then denied that he ever denied it. So, as Don Q had noted, any chance he has for his reputation surviving into the future will depend upon how well his work on linguistics stands the test of time. Even if overturned, he will be remembered for having stood out in his era.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2012 at 12:21
And he is "disputing the number of executions" for what purpose? Could it be to induce the reader to consider reports of large scale killing equal to genocide to be unworthy of their attention? Something drummed up by the Western press to cast aspersions upon the "Cambodian revolutionaries". (Hmm, what a mild term that is.) "An obvious fact which no serious (reader) will fail to take into account."

Thank you. You've proven my point in re Chomsknologists. 


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2012 at 19:58
Well, Chomsky underplayed the terror in Cambodia, no matter who one looks at the said article. He probably wouldn't do that is the same was happening in Palestine. Which shows again that no one is fully objective.

I'm not comfortable with his parallels he does all the time that US is just like USSR was, because it isn't. I had seen real censure, when one cannot listen to radio because the waves are blocked 24/7, no newspapers but Russian ones are published, no news for anywhere but USSR are allowed, and all the books that are published are by writers who claimed sympathy with the regime. He mentioned on one of the vids I posted how a dissident, I don't remember for sure was in Lech Walesa came to the US and the American intelligentsia was enthralled by him, but they don't treat the same the American critics; which make me think that he sees himself as some American Soljenitsin or Saharov, which is simply not a parallel.

If he was to be dissident, in Russia, he would not only not have a  career, or publish books, but not be even alive; Solzhenitzin and Saharov were lucky to be left alive, but had to smuggle and publish in the west illegally. Solzhenitsin was imprisoned and exiled for what he mentioned in a private letter, and after being exhonerated was never allowed to do more than teach a secondary school, this is what a totalitarian society is and does. Chomsky is  far universe away being treated like that.

Also he was saying how communism brought Russia out of the Third World, and improved significantly the standard of living, and now how capitalism made Russia a third world country again - which is not true - I have an ongoing discussion on that with a Russian member on this thread http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31472&PID=672247#672247 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31472&PID=672247#672247   a person who had seen both ends of the story, and says exactly the opposite from personal experience. I can vouch for the same for Bulgaria.

Anyway, we are all humans, we are all fallible, with our blunders, subjectivities, etc, no one is exempted of that. There is much value in some of Chomsky's views, and much trash in another such. I have to admit that I haven't heard those lectures before, I got on this because if this thread, so my comments go as I hear more from his views; so I find quite a bit that I disagree with.


-------------


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2012 at 01:22
Couple of vids with lectures by Chomsky:
This one is on Palestine:
[TUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdfzC5NNAew&feature=related[/TUBE]
This one is on the Middle East as a whole. Some of the info is the same in both, I have some bones here and there, but as a whole I agree with him more or less
[TUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvczABgZbhU&feature=related[/TUBE]


-------------


Posted By: ralfy
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2012 at 04:07
Superb use of verifiable sources, especially from the horse's mouth (e.g., the U.S. government). His only flaw is his acceptance of the official view of 9-11.



Posted By: Abudhar
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2012 at 10:22
NOAM cannot be rated as GENUIS the attribute is so hard to find out for a GREAT MAN and a WIDE PHILOSOPHER that does not care much about the Western critics for his support to many Arab and Islamic causes throughout the World , a FREE SOUL MAN , every wise HUMAN is to respect this positive creation of Almighty GOD!!!!

-------------
Seek Knowledge from the Cradle to the Grave-Prophet Mohamed(P.B.U.H)


Posted By: TafeerKhan
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2012 at 06:18
I think he is a genius. He has become an icon of defiance to US foreign policy and hegemony. His analysis is sharp and truthful. His contribution is really important.

-------------


Posted By: Drang nach Osten
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2015 at 14:17
His views are very lopsided in my opinion. 

-------------
There is nowhere to retreat - Moscow is ahead of us!


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2015 at 22:09
He remains an anti-Semite/anti-American, socialist, rabble rouser...nothing more.

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2015 at 23:39
He is a published academic, for what that's worth.

I respect his wholehearted usage of his US birth-right to express
his views freely, along with Lenny Bruce,Bill Hicks,& Larry Flynt..



-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2015 at 15:43
I read a lot about and from Chomsky this last year as part of my studies. His Universal Grammar seems to make sense to me, at least for now.

-------------


Posted By: jlaughs
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2018 at 04:18
I really admire Chomsky. His work has been consistently critical and urgent. Yet, I find his affiliation to the academy quite troubling. I think Foucault is more radical than good old Chomsky.

To clarify, I just think Foucault walked the talk more than Chomsky. I admire both of them greatly.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com