r/chomsky • u/-_-_-_-otalp-_-_-_- Space Anarchism • May 25 '17
Share your emails with Chomsky here
Have you ever sent e-mails to Chomsky? If you have, you can share it in this thread for the rest of us, but only if you have his permission. Don't post the transcript if you don't, because he doesn't approve of it.
If you don't have permission, you can post your question to him and the gist of his reply, along with any books or articles he might have recommended.
The previous question thread can be found here and here. Please search there before asking him any questions directly.
4
u/Honest_trifles Jun 06 '17
Me:
Why did you slag this quote by Schlesinger:
If the american govt does succeed we will all be praising the wisdom and statesmanship of the american govt in reducing Vietnam to a land of ruin and wreck.
Seems like something you would say.
Noam:
Because that was the opinion he shared
Me:
What i mean is that yr always talking about how the intellectual class keeps flattering and giving excuses for govt actions so his opinion is consistent with yours.
In that video you go on to say that he was considered a critic of war and the considered critics always have this position.
"looks like we can reduce the land to ruin and wreck and massacre enough people so that we will win so therefore we should all be praising that wisdom and statesmanship of the govt"
But Schlesinger never said "should" which means that your proposition remains unproven. The proposition was that there is a very narrow spectrum of debate about the war.
Me:
https://youtu.be/FSKVPDpgbJI?t=23m29s
I gave the wrong timestamp on the video. This is the correct timestamp. ^
Noam:
It is transparent in the context that he approves of this view. That's why he begins by saying that we all pray the Mr. Alsop will be right, and that the US will win the war.
There isn't the slightest ambiguity.
3
May 29 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Lamont-Cranston May 30 '17
3.2 million for Vietnam, 500,000 to 2 million for Afghan war, 500,000 to 1 million for bombing Cambodia, 1 million for Iraq sanctions, 1 million for Iraq invasion & occupation, 600,000 for Suhartos coup, 200,000 a decade later in East Timor
Anyone got figures for Central and South America? Africa? Palestine? Kurds in Turkey in the 90s? Philippines under Marcos? South Koreas under the military dictators?
1
u/comix_corp Jun 06 '17
I think that's what Chomsky means by expansive measure. The US itself didn't kill anyone in Timor, for example, they just funded Indonesia (who did).
1
Jun 08 '17
Which Afghan war? Hasn't Chomsky quoted Carter's Secretary of State multiple times bragging about dragging the USSR into it's own Vietnam?
1
2
u/51PO5 Jun 13 '17
Me:
Should all journalist abandon the concept of objectivity all together?
Noam:
No journalist should give it up as a goal.
1
1
u/AvinashChowdhary Jun 10 '17
Me:
Manufacturing Consent (1988) mostly dealt with nationalist bias of the american-media. Was media-bias towards elites in foreign countries not an issue in the eighties?
For example:
The nyt and washington post are being paid by the ccp to run a pro-china paper called china-watch. NYT was bought out by Carlos Slim and is printing articles that are biased towards mexican immigration into usa.
Noam:
No detectable effect to my knowledge
1
u/51PO5 Jun 13 '17
Me:
What do you think of wikipedia/ Do you use it? Are there any mistakes?
i could correct it if you mention some.
Noam:
I use it and find it valuable. Questions always about controversial areas
Me:
"Questions always about controversial areas"
What do you mean by this?
2
u/HobbieDoyle Aug 16 '17
He mean wikipedia is generally good, it only has some flaws on controversial topics/information
1
Jun 13 '17
He obviously means to check the sources, etc. It's not a scholarly site, so take everything with a grain of salt and realize you may not be getting the full picture.
1
u/51PO5 Jun 13 '17
Me:
Why not put all yr books in the public domain?
Noam:
Ask the publishers, who make those decisions for all books. Though you needn't ask, though you know the answer, just as you know why you don't give away your computer and everything else you own
Me:
Almost every famous book we can get from the internet for free. So i dont really know why i asked that.
1
u/51PO5 Jun 13 '17
Me:
Bombing yugoslavia, splitting yugoslavia, bombing iraq five times, occupying iraq for 10 years, bombing of pakistan, bombing afganistan, sanctions on cuba, coup in honduras. coup in venesuel, coup in brazil, arms and funds to israel and saudi arabia. bombing yemen, rise of isis, rise of taliban.
w bloc did all this because of no more ussr?
Noam:
It did much worse while the USSR was alive and powerful. But it's true that its collapse was an inhibiting factor, though probably not as much as others, including domestic opposition to the use of force
Me:
I think you mean
"But it's true that its 'presence' was an inhibiting factor"
1
u/TazakiTsukuru American Power and the New Mandarins Aug 17 '17
No, he meant what he said. The collapse of the soviet union meant the US lost its main reason for every intervention up to that point
1
u/51PO5 Aug 18 '17
As the Cold War ended, new pretexts had to be devised. George Bush celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall by invading Panama, installing the regime of a tiny minority of bankers and narcotraffickers who, as predicted, have turned Panama into the second most active center for cocaine money laundering in the Western Hemisphere, the State Department concedes, the United States still holding first place. The Red Menace having disappeared, he was protecting us from Hispanic narcotraffickers led by the arch-demon Noriega, transmuted from valued friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun, in standard fashion, when he began to disobey orders. And we were soon to learn that in the Middle East, long the major target of our intervention forces, the "threats to our interests . . . could not be laid at the Kremlin's door" (Bush National Security Strategy Report, March 1990); after decades of deception, the Soviet pretext can no longer be dredged up to justify traditional Pentagon-based industrial policy and intervention forces, so it is "the growing technological sophistication" of the Third World that requires us to strengthen the "defense industrial base" (AKA high tech industry) and maintain the world's only massive intervention forces - a shift of rhetoric that at least has the merit of edging closer to the reality: that independent nationalism has been the prime target throughout.
https://chomsky.info/199401__02/
Nor did it take great insight for Elliott Abrams to observe that the US invasion of Panama was unusual because it could be conducted without fear of a Soviet reaction anywhere, or for numerous commentators during the 1990-91 Gulf crisis to add that the US and Britain were now free to use unlimited force against its Third World enemy, since they were no longer inhibited by the Soviet deterrent.
Of course, the end of the Cold War brings its problems too. Notably, the technique for controlling the domestic population has had to shift, a problem recognised through the 1980s, as we've already seen. New enemies have to be invented. It becomes harder to disguise the fact that the real enemy has always been "the poor who seek to plunder the rich" - in particular, Third World miscreants who seek to break out of the service role.
http://libcom.org/history/1940-1989-the-cold-war
The basic continuity of policy was illustrated again when the Soviet Union collapsed, offering new opportunities along with the need for new misimpressions. The assault on Cuba was intensified, but re-framed: it was no longer defense against the Russians, but rather Washington's sincere dedication to democracy that required strangulation of Cuba and US-based terror. The sudden shift of pretexts elicited little reflection, in fact no detectable notice. (As we see directly, the model was followed closely in 2003 after the collapse of the pretexts for invading Iraq.) Bush's invasion of Panama immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was in itself hardly more than a footnote to the history of the region. But it, too, revealed changes. One was pointed out by Reaganite State Department official Elliott Abrams, who observed that "Bush probably is going to be increasingly willing to use force" now that there was little fear of its leading to a Russian reaction. In Panama, too, new pretexts were needed: not the Russian menace, but narcotrafficking by Noriega, a longtime CIA asset who was becoming uncooperative (embellished with a few tales about threats to Americans). In August 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the United States and United Kingdom felt free to place a huge expeditionary force in the Saudi Arabian desert in their buildup to the January 1991 invasion, no longer deterred by the superpower rival.
Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy
1
1
u/51PO5 Jun 14 '17
Me:
Could you give a more elaborate discussion of pinker's book, "Better angels of our nature"
There's a very heated discussion of 705 comments on a two minute video where youre talking about that book. It seems to be readin into a small amount of info.
Noam:
There is strong evidence that it is incorrect for virtually all of human history. See Brian Ferguson, Douglas Fry, and others. On the modern period, see the review by Edward Herman and Edward Peterson, on Znet.
1
u/51PO5 Jun 18 '17
What do you think about the wikipedia for "Laotian Civil War"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laotian_Civil_War&oldid=783988675
Seems at odds with what you said. This is what you said:
A coalition government was established in 1958 after the only elections worthy of the name in the history of Laos. Despite extensive US efforts, they were won handily by the left. Nine of the thirteen candidates of the [communist] Pathet Lao guerrillas won seats in the national assembly, along with four candidates of the left-leaning neutralists (“fellow traveler,” as they were called by Ambassador Parsons). Thus “Communists or fellow travelers” won thirteen of the twenty-one seats contested. The largest vote went to the leader of the Pathet Lao, Prince Souphanouvong, who was elected chairman of the national assembly.
US pressures- including, crucially, the withdrawal of aid – quickly led to the overthrow of the government in a coup by a “pro-Western neutralist” who pledged his allegiance to “the free world” and declared his intention to disband the political party of the Pathet Lao (Neo Lao Hak Sat), scrapping the agreements that had successfully established the coalition. He was overthrown in turn by the CIA favorite, the ultra-right-wing General Phoumi Nosavan. After US clients won the 1960 elections, rigged so crudely that even the most pro-US observers were appalled, civil war broke out, with the USSR and China backing a coalition extending over virtually the entire political spectrum apart from the extreme right, which was backed by the United States.
Things you missed:
North Vietnam invaded Laos, and the Communists gained their power as lackeys for these foreign invaders. Although the Communists did well in the 1958 elections, they absolutely did not have a majority in government at the time, and in fact stonewalled the legitimate government. Xananikôn was elected constitutionally by the National Assembly, including the Communists. The Communists refused to stand down their armies and join the national government, and when the government tried to make them, North Vietnam invaded again, with the Communists supporting the foreign invaders. It was in this context that the Neutralists launched their coup, and Phoumi’s CIA-backed countercoup was actually in opposition to it.
You missed out a giant foreign invasion happening during the middle of the events yr describing.
Is this a case of wikipedia being innacurate?
goo.gl/rBaea2
Noam's reply
What I wrote was quite accurate, as the sources establish. Wikipedia is very good for certain things -- mathematics, medieval history, etc. When it reaches matters of contemporary ideology, everyone knows to take it with many large grains of salt.
6
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '17
please close this thread it's a violation of privacy and Chomsky has said he doesn't want his emails available to the public.