Hardtalk tries to rip Noam Chomsky, fails.

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ROSdp2IaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpQk5Jcj56w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9QVNJYPMEo&feature=related

This is a great interview for the OI, simply because the interviewer asks all the questions that right wingers here ask, tough questions, like.

Is'nt the United States a conservative country?

If not why don't people vote that way?

What about all the good things about the US?

Was'nt the Afghanistan war out of self defense?

Your parents came to the US and would have been killed in Ukraine, yet you critisize the US,.

And so on and so forth.

[IcarusAngel]

Great thanks for posting. I'll have to check it out.


Chomsky has been one of the best lines of defense for the left. He sticks to the important issues without getting sidetracking. He is indeed the 'capitalist's worst nightmare' as his only concern is pointing out the hypocrisy and tyranny that exists in capitalism and because of the US government. Capitalists also aren't able to slander him as just some 'idiot' like they do to many on the left, such as dedicated activists.

The left needs to continue his tradition of speaking out for freedom and against hierarchy and coercion of any kind (including market coercion).

I'll have more to say after I finish watching but it already looks interesting.

[Ele'ill]

The signer was totally on Chomsky's side.

[ls]

HardTalk used to be good now it's shit since Steven Sucker.

Mind you, I don't love Chomsky either, even though he's done some good stuff and had some good debates.

[RHIZOMES]

lol in the 3rd part the interviewer complains about CHOMSKY's self-righteousness. :lol::lol::lol:

[IllicitPopsicle]

I'm sorry, but Mr. Chomsky owned that dude's ass.

[Drace]

Captions would have worked much better.
She seemed silly. At first I thought she was making fun of Chomsky with the signs lol.

I didn't like this debate though. He doesn't seem to fully answer the questions

[IllicitPopsicle]

Captions would have worked much better.
She seemed silly. At first I thought she was making fun of Chomsky with the signs lol.


THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT!!!

It was her facial expressions too.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Apparently Chomsky likes to focus on the United States' "crimes, as he calls them." I guess it's supposed to be a controversial thesis that the United States commits crimes. Hilarious. I guess the definition of a controversial thesis is a lot broader than I thought.

I did have one issue. Chomsky kind of implies that the Taliban asking for evidence means something. I doubt they would hand over someone of authority to the United States. I'm still against the war, but that's kind of a bad point of criticism. There are plenty of other better points to make.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think it's fun to pause the videos in random spots and laugh at the signer's facial expressions.

Good interview, though.

[Havet]

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7826/apoyochomsky.jpg

[RGacky3]

Chomsky has'nt endorsed, ever, any of those guys, niether has he endorsed Chavez.

[Havet]

Chomsky has'nt endorsed, ever, any of those guys, niether has he endorsed Chavez.

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1263/chomskychavez.jpg


“I have been quite interested in his policies,” Chomsky said. “Personally, I think many of them are quite constructive.” Most important, he said, Chavez seems to have the overwhelming support of the people in his country. “He has gone through six closely supervised elections,” he said.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2006092... (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060922101227133)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

“I have been quite interested in his policies,” Chomsky said. “Personally, I think many of them are quite constructive.” Most important, he said, Chavez seems to have the overwhelming support of the people in his country. “He has gone through six closely supervised elections,” he said.
All of which is absolutely true.

Oh, and if Noam Chomsky really supported Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot, then he was right 3 out of 4 times.

Or perhaps you would have supported Chiang Kai-Shek, Batista, and the American puppet regime in South Vietnam?

[RGacky3]

“I have been quite interested in his policies,” Chomsky said. “Personally, I think many of them are quite constructive.” Most important, he said, Chavez seems to have the overwhelming support of the people in his country. “He has gone through six closely supervised elections,” he said.

I don't know if that counts as an endorsement, but as far as mao and those is concerned, he has routinely criticized leninist regiems.

[Havet]

Or perhaps you would have supported Chiang Kai-Shek, Batista, and the American puppet regime in South Vietnam?

I would have supported the workers, not those pretense saviors.

[Havet]

I don't know if that counts as an endorsement, but as far as mao and those is concerned, he has routinely criticized leninist regiems.


Nathan Folkert (formerly a Chomsky supporter) points out that Chomsky described China under Mao in quite positive terms during a panel discussion on revolutionary violence in 1967, saying that it had achieved a just society, at least to some extent [http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/talks/violence_html]. I was also quite surprised to see him refer to China's invasion and occupation of Tibet in these terms:
There are various harsh things that one might say about Chinese behavior in what the Sino-Indian Treaty of 1954 refers to as "the Tibet region of China" ....
["The Responsibility of Intellectuals" (1967)] I hope it's not too presumptuous of me to say that this phrasing suggests it wasn't an invasion. Of course, this was in 1967. More recently, Chomsky does say:


The centerpiece of the accusation was the Chinese famine of 1958-61, which accounted for 1/3 of the grim total. Of course, no one supposed that Mao literally murdered tens of millions of people, or that he "intended" that any die at all. Rather, these crimes were the outcome of institutional and ideological structures of the Maoist system, as discussed in the primary scholarly work on the topic by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and his colleague Jean Dreze. These charges are unchallenged, and rightly so. I will not elaborate because I have done so elsewhere in a ZNet commentary in January 2000, reprinted and extended in [I]Rogue States.
[http://www.zmag.org/chomreply2.htm] It's a somewhat qualified statement, but Chomsky does acknowledge the millions that died during the famine (15-30 million, according to Maurice Meisner in Mao's China and After).

Source (http://www.russilwvong.com/future/chomsky.html)


The first victims of the Communist oppression in Cuba were anarchists, so how can you, as a confessed Libertarian Socialist (Anarchist?) justify ideologically your uncritical visit in October 2003 to dictator Fidel Castro? CLAUDE MOREIRA, WELLING, LONDON

The "uncritical visit" is a fabrication of British editors. As they knew, I was an invited speaker (along with prominent British and American scholars) at an international conference of the society of Latin American scholars, which happened to meet that year in Havana, and used the opportunity to criticise state repression quite harshly on Cuban national TV and in a public meeting. Castro routinely met attendees. I've often actually met high officials of countries that have carried out incomparably worse crimes than anything attributed to Castro, even travelled to meet them, unlike this case: the US, to take the most obvious example.





Do you regret mocking the accounts of refugees fleeing Pol Pot's Cambodia? LIJIA FREEMAN, NEW YORK


The closest approximation to this ludicrous charge is that Edward Herman and I cited the best-informed sources then available on Cambodia, State Department intelligence and François Ponchaud, who made the familiar point that testimony of refugees must be treated with caution. I certainly do not regret that. The record of deceit on this topic is huge. It has all been refuted, point by point, many times. This is one illustration of an interesting feature of intellectual culture. Periodically, there are atrocities that we can blame on official enemies - what Herman calls "nefarious atrocities", unlike those for which we share responsibility and can therefore easily mitigate or terminate. The latter are regularly downplayed or suppressed. The nefarious atrocities regularly elicit religious fervour, dramatic posturing, baseless claims to inflate them as much as possible - and fury if anyone does not blindly join the parade, but seeks to determine the truth, cites the most reputable authorities, and exposes the innumerable fabrications. The common reaction to such treachery is an impressive torrent of deceit. There is an instructive record, quite well documented in many cases. The reasons are not hard to explain. The topic should be pursued systematically, but that is unlikely, obviously.

(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14727.htm)
Sources (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14727.htm)


---


I even like what he says sometimes, but I don't agree with many of his opinions regarding past revolutions and current statist power, this being the case.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I would have supported the workers, not those pretense saviors.
The workers were on the side of Mao, Castro, and Ho. What exactly would you have told them? "I support you, but not the leaders you want for yourselves, nor any of the economic policies you demand?"

Sitting on the sidelines and opposing everyone who does not fit your standards of ideological purity may be an acceptable option in times when there isn't much action going on. But in times of civil war, failure to support the most pro-worker faction with a realistic chance of victory is criminally irresponsible.

[Havet]

The workers were on the side of Mao, Castro, and Ho. What exactly would you have told them? "I support you, but not the leaders you want for yourselves, nor any of the economic policies you demand?"

Sitting on the sidelines and opposing everyone who does not fit your standards of ideological purity may be an acceptable option in times when there isn't much action going on. But in times of civil war, failure to support the most pro-worker faction with a realistic chance of victory is criminally irresponsible.

I only support the workers when I think their actions will actually achieve anything, and the things they claim to believe in WILL result in a better condition at the expense of nobody else (with the exception of those with the power and privilege, of course).

Is it criminally irresponsible to not support blood-thirsty brainwashed people?

Suppose tomorrow workers decided they wanted a dictatorship, led by a populist's propaganda. According to your argument, you should support them no matter what simply because they are workers.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I only support the workers when I think their actions will actually achieve anything, and the things they claim to believe in WILL result in a better condition at the expense of nobody else (with the exception of those with the power and privilege, of course).
Fine. So, again I ask you, who would you support between Mao and Chiang? Castro and Batista? Ho and American imperialism?

And don't say that you would take a third option. There was no third option. That's the whole point.


Suppose tomorrow workers decided they wanted a dictatorship, led by a populist's propaganda. According to your argument, you should support them no matter what simply because they are workers.
No. What I said was that IF there is a civil war going on and IF this populist is better for the workers than any of the other possible winners in the civil war... THEN I should, and would, support him.

[Demogorgon]

Chomsky didn't support the various people he is accused of. He sometimes said certain policies were good, or that they were demonised to suit American interests, but that is hardly the same as support.

As for Pol Pot, he never said anything in support for him. He pointed out the American Government exaggerated the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in order to provide cover for its own crimes in the region. That hardly counts as support.

[Havet]

Fine. So, again I ask you, who would you support between Mao and Chiang? Castro and Batista? Ho and American imperialism?

And don't say that you would take a third option. There was no third option. That's the whole point.

Human beings have the ability to choose, or not. If you give me a choice between Mao and Chiant, Castro and Batista, Ho and american imperialism, I would NOT choose (that is an available third option) because I find both exploitative.

Furthermore, you can't just invent false dichotomies out of nowhere. Of course there were other options, except people weren't aware of them.


No. What I said was that IF there is a civil war going on and IF this populist is better for the workers than any of the other possible winners in the civil war... THEN I should, and would, support him.

Even at the expense of other dissenting workers? See, this is exactly the problem with utilitarianist principles. You're ok with "the least harmful" of choices even if those are made at the expense of many hundreds or thousands of lives.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Human beings have the ability to choose, or not. If you give me a choice between Mao and Chiant, Castro and Batista, Ho and american imperialism, I would NOT choose (that is an available third option) because I find both exploitative.
Then you would pick a losing side (the side of No One is always a losing side), and probably die as a result. Great choice. :rolleyes:


Furthermore, you can't just invent false dichotomies out of nowhere. Of course there were other options, except people weren't aware of them.
Were there any other options with a realistic chance of victory? No, there were not.


Even at the expense of other dissenting workers? See, this is exactly the problem with utilitarianist principles. You're ok with "the least harmful" of choices even if those are made at the expense of many hundreds or thousands of lives.
If the death of hundreds or thousands of people is "the least harmful" option, then, by definition, any other option would involve the deaths of even more people.

So yeah, I'm perfectly happy to choose the option that results in the least possible amount of deaths. I don't see the problem here.

[Havet]

Then you would pick a losing side (the side of No One is always a losing side), and probably die as a result. Great choice. :rolleyes:

I have no problem with dying. At least I wouldn't have murder on my conscience.


Were there any other options with a realistic chance of victory? No, there were not.

So you only care about victory, regardless of how you achieve it? Talk about greed :rolleyes:


If the death of hundreds or thousands of people is "the least harmful" option, then, by definition, any other option would involve the deaths of even more people.

So yeah, I'm perfectly happy to choose the option that results in the least possible amount of deaths. I don't see the problem here.

The problem is that you were directly responsible for condoning the death of hundreds if not thousands of people, regardless if more would have been killed if you had acted otherwise, YOU were responsible for their deaths.

[RGacky3]

Chomsky didn't support the various people he is accused of. He sometimes said certain policies were good, or that they were demonised to suit American interests, but that is hardly the same as support.

As for Pol Pot, he never said anything in support for him. He pointed out the American Government exaggerated the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in order to provide cover for its own crimes in the region. That hardly counts as support.

Excactly, its the parenoia of the right wing that makes it so if you don't demonize every bad person that is American's enemy, or agree with the exagurations, you support them, its rediculous, it almost does'nt matter that what he said is actually factual.

[Skooma Addict]

Then you would pick a losing side (the side of No One is always a losing side), and probably die as a result. Great choice.

Why would he die? Also, please stop supporting mass murderers. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

[ls]

Chomsky has'nt endorsed, ever, any of those guys, niether has he endorsed Chavez.

There is a thread on Chomsky on libcom and on here as well (in politics I think). It was proven that he has praised the reactionary Turkish state and Chavez, he has also praised Castro too but I don't think that was mentioned.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Human beings have the ability to choose, or not. If you give me a choice between Mao and Chiant, Castro and Batista, Ho and american imperialism, I would NOT choose (that is an available third option) because I find both exploitative.

Furthermore, you can't just invent false dichotomies out of nowhere. Of course there were other options, except people weren't aware of them.



Even at the expense of other dissenting workers? See, this is exactly the problem with utilitarianist principles. You're ok with "the least harmful" of choices even if those are made at the expense of many hundreds or thousands of lives.

As opposed to what you do, which is waste your time on a non existant option. Which will result in more people dying than had you picked the "ulititarian" choice.

Also, get some historical materialism up in this motherfucker, are you honestly supposing that there was any other option BUT policies very similar to either Mao or Chiang's in China in the 1930s? That backward, agarian, religious shithole?

Of course there wasn't.

[scarletghoul]

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7826/apoyochomsky.jpg
:laugh:

[Havet]

As opposed to what you do, which is waste your time on a non existant option. Which will result in more people dying than had you picked the "ulititarian" choice.

Yes, but I wouldn't be responsible for their deaths. I didn't kill them. The ruling class did.


Also, get some historical materialism up in this motherfucker, are you honestly supposing that there was any other option BUT policies very similar to either Mao or Chiang's in China in the 1930s? That backward, agarian, religious shithole?

Of course there wasn't.

Well, this motherfucker (ad hominem?) was hoping that the working class could grab the excess created by years of exploitation, sell it to other countries, use the wealth the create institutions to that create food, clothes and all the basic needs, and then proceed with the industrialization. But since you seem to be so literate in historical materialism, can you explain why this couldn't happen?

[IcarusAngel]

I don't know why you guys even respond to Hayenmill. It's obvious he doesn't even know what he's talking about, and has never read Chomsky's work.

It's also funny considering the fact that he supports privatization plans that have led to far more deaths, such as in India, than what occurred under Mao, such as his support for a removal of the social welfare system.

[Havet]

I don't know why you guys even respond to Hayenmill. It's obvious he doesn't even know what he's talking about, and has never read Chomsky's work.

It's also funny considering the fact that he supports privatization plans that have led to far more deaths, such as in India, than what occurred under Mao, such as his support for a removal of the social welfare system.

I was wondering when you'd show up with your strawman bullshit. Took you a while, eh?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I have no problem with dying. At least I wouldn't have murder on my conscience.
That's nice. It means you'll never be a threat to anyone. The bourgeoisie simply loves "radicals" who refuse to get their hands dirty. I'm sure your principled stance will be an inspiration for affluent college kids everywhere.


So you only care about victory, regardless of how you achieve it?
Yes. I thought I made that clear a long time ago...


Talk about greed :rolleyes:
Actually, it's more a matter of devotion to the cause. And a desire to get things done. Ideology and theory and philosophy are worthless unless you actually use them in practice to fight for a society free of class divisions and exploitation.


The problem is that you were directly responsible for condoning the death of hundreds if not thousands of people, regardless if more would have been killed if you had acted otherwise, YOU were responsible for their deaths.
So fucking what? I'm supposed to let a greater number of people die just so I won't have to deal with a guilty conscience?


Why would he die?
Well, that is what tends to happen to people who are stuck in the middle of a civil war and insist on opposing both sides.


Also, please stop supporting mass murderers.
Sure. Right after you stop supporting an economic system that was founded on mass murder.

[IcarusAngel]

Chomsky never supported Pol Pot, nor did he endorse the state regimes in the USSR.

In fact, Chomsky was merely pointing out errors capitalists were making when attacking Pol Pot. First of all, the United States is responsible for the bombings of inner-Cambodia that led to the direct establishment of Pol Pot and it was the United States who undermined Prince Sihanouk, who was holding off both the left, and the right, in Cambodia.

As chomsky points out:

"Few countries have suffered more bitterly than did Cambodia during the 1970s. The "decade of genocide," as the period is termed by the Finnish Inquiry Commission that attempted to assess what had taken place, consisted of three phases -- now extending the time scale to the present, which bears a heavy imprint of these terrible years:

Phase I: From 1969 through April 1975, US bombing at a historically unprecedented level and a civil war sustained by the United States left the country in ruins. Though Congress legislated an end to the bombing in August 1973, US government participation in the ongoing slaughter continued until the Khmer Rouge victory in 1975

Phase II: From April 1975 through 1978, Cambodia was subjected to the muderous rule of the Khmer Rouge (Democratic Kampuchea, DK), overthrown by the Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.


Phase III: Vietnam installed the Heng Samrin regime in power in Cambodia, but the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) coalition, based primarily on the Khmer Rouge, maintained international recognition apart from the Soviet bloc. Reconstructed with the aid of China and the United States on the Thai-Cambodia border and in Thai bases, the Khmer Rouge guerrillas, the only effective DK military force, continue to carry out activities in Cambodia of a sort called "terrorist" when a friendly government is the target.


So it was Vietnam, not the United States, that ended the brutal regime and furthermore the United States helped Pol Pot escape out of Cambodia and into Taiwan under Reagan.

In fact, the reviewer in the NY Review of Books even admitted that he lied about Pol Pot's crimes and misunderstood the figures in Year Zero, and tried to pass it off as his patriotic duty to distort the figures, with Chomsky quickly pointing out the error of that position.

As for Brad Delong, I recommend this article:

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2003w29/msg00374.htm


This is from my Universities "Marxism" department's mailing list.

[quote]

<FONT size=2>DeLong then goes on to say that it is true today that the

[Havet]

So fucking what? I'm supposed to let a greater number of people die just so I won't have to deal with a guilty conscience?


Can I kill you, then, if I can find some "what-if" scenario where your death will save at least 2 lives?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Can I kill you, then, if I can find some "what-if" scenario where your death will save at least 2 lives?
If you can be absolutely certain that there is no better way to save those 2 lives, then yes.

Remember, utilitarianism is about picking the best option, not some random option that might be "good enough." If there is a better way to save those 2 lives that does not involve killing me, you should pick that way instead.

[IcarusAngel]

I was wondering when you'd show up with your strawman bullshit. Took you a while, eh?


How is it a 'straw man' to point out the policies you support led to even MORE DEATHS than what Chomsky supposedly supported (which he never did, he was correct errors like any scientist must do).


I seriously doubt you've read The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights vol I, and I especially double you've read: After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights Vol II, where Chomsky supposedly supports Pol Pot (see above).


If you've read the books why don't you tell us about them in your own words instead of lifting debunked nonsense from right-wing blogs, just like the interviewer did.

[Havet]

If you can be absolutely certain that there is no better way to save those 2 lives, then yes.

Remember, utilitarianism is about picking the best option, not some random option that might be "good enough." If there is a better way to save those 2 lives that does not involve killing me, you should pick that way instead.

How do you know there was no better way to increase the standard of living in China and other similar proto-communist countries without killing or starving anyone?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How do you know there was no better way to increase the standard of living in China and other similar proto-communist countries without killing or starving anyone?
There were better ways, theoretically speaking. But, in practice, there was no possibility of actually implementing any of those better ways. Of the available options for China in 1949, Mao was the best.

[IcarusAngel]

This is all off topic to what Chomsky was saying as he actually didn't favor Pol Pot or even Mao. Chomsky has been the leading anti-(right) Libertarian in the US, and it drives them crazy.

If the left loses its ability to combat right-Libertarianism we might allow an even worse form of capitalism to rear its ugly head again. This is why I support support groups, Universities, online groups, mailings lists, whatever, anything that tackles Market Libertarianism so we do not end up with a situation where things keep getting worse instead of better.

[Havet]

How is it a 'straw man' to point out the policies you support led to even MORE DEATHS than what Chomsky supposedly supported (which he never did, he was correct errors like any scientist must do).


Ok, what policies do I support, and where have I stated my support for them?

As for my right-wing sources, see for yourself:

Source 1 (http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm)

Source 2 (http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/chomsky-effect-housmans-281109-20112009)

Source 3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chomsky-meets-chavez-t116986/index.html?t=116986&highlight=chomsky)

[Havet]

There were better ways, theoretically speaking. But, in practice, there was no possibility of actually implementing any of those better ways. Of the available options for China in 1949, Mao was the best.

Why was there no possibility of actually implementing any of those better ways?

[IcarusAngel]

No where does Chomsky support the regimes in those articles the way Libertarians aided Pinochet and even advised his regime on how to rule his population with their free-market nonsense.

As Chomsky, Chomsky was accused of supporting 'Communism' for issuing corrections on the research of some individuals who even admitted that they were lying.

Hayenmill's position: "Leftists should lie to third world workers about the crimes of communism in order to get them to support free-trade agreements that lead to even MORE DEATHS due to a combination of US imperialism and starvation/poverty."

This fails Chomsky's "moral responsibility test" and so he did not choose to do that.

[Havet]

Hayenmill's position: "Leftists should lie to third world workers about the crimes of communism in order to get them to support free-trade agreements that lead to even MORE DEATHS due to a combination of US imperialism and starvation/poverty."


Again your strawman bullshit really floats like the shit it is. Where have I supported free-trade agreements and imperialism?

[IcarusAngel]

You said that free-trade gives workers 'jobs' that they otherwise wouldn't have had and that puts them in a better position ignoring the obvious evidence that they have been kept in perpetual poverty for years due to this type of 'reasoning.'

[Skooma Addict]

Well, that is what tends to happen to people who are stuck in the middle of a civil war and insist on opposing both sides.


You don't have to actively oppose both sides. Most people who disagree with both sides keep quite so the people like you who support mass murder don't get them killed.



Sure. Right after you stop supporting an economic system that was founded on mass murder.

The economic system I believe in was not founded on mass murder.

[Havet]

You said that free-trade gives workers 'jobs' that they otherwise wouldn't have had and that puts them in a better position ignoring the obvious evidence that they have been kept in perpetual poverty for years due to this type of 'reasoning.'

The evidence clearly shows that we have not had any free-trade at the most basic level, and that the supposed "freedom to trade" was actually only available to the privileged elite.

[ls]

This is all off topic to what Chomsky was saying as he actually didn't favor Pol Pot or even Mao. Chomsky has been the leading anti-(right) Libertarian in the US, and it drives them crazy.

If the left loses its ability to combat right-Libertarianism we might allow an even worse form of capitalism to rear its ugly head again. This is why I support support groups, Universities, online groups, mailings lists, whatever, anything that tackles Market Libertarianism so we do not end up with a situation where things keep getting worse instead of better.

Nah, he's only gone and praised the Turkish state for anti-imperialism against the US.

Congrats to a true class-warrior from his intellectual wankhole going and meeting world leaders Erdogan and Chavez, congrats to him, what a socialist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You don't have to actively oppose both sides. Most people who disagree with both sides keep quite so the people like you who support mass murder don't get them killed.
Those people are called apolitical, and yes, they tend to form the majority of the population.

But I was under the impression that Hayenmill wanted to actually make a stand, or at least adopt some political stance other than "do nothing, say nothing."


The economic system I believe in was not founded on mass murder.
Currently existing property rights were founded on mass murder. To the extent that you support currently existing property rights, you support a system founded on mass murder.

Of course, you may wash your hands of this legacy by admitting that all currently existing property rights are illegitimate, and supporting the fight against them. But you're not willing to do that.

[RGacky3]

Nah, he's only gone and praised the Turkish state for anti-imperialism against the US.

Congrats to a true class-warrior from his intellectual wankhole going and meeting world leaders Erdogan and Chavez, congrats to him, what a socialist.

Where exactly did he "praise" the Turkish state? I'd like to see a quote, and it better not be, simply stating facts, that does'nt count as praising.

Also whats wrong with meeting world leaders? He writes books.

[ls]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=chomsky-lauds-turkeys-independent-actions-2009-11-03

Well done to comrade Chomsky, all hail the independent more democratic Turkish state!

[RGacky3]

He called Turkey an "independant actor" for refusing to go along with the United States, I don't consider that praise, I would have called Saddam Hussain and "independant actor" as well, that does'nt mean I'm praising or supporting him, its freaking rediculous to say that is praise.

Does calling tibet an "independant actor" by resisting cHinas rule mean your praising their internal politics? Hardly.

[ls]

He called Turkey an "independant actor" for refusing to go along with the United States, I don't consider that praise, I would have called Saddam Hussain and "independant actor" as well, that does'nt mean I'm praising or supporting him, its freaking rediculous to say that is praise.

Yeah yeah, heard it all before.


Does calling tibet an "independant actor" by resisting cHinas rule mean your praising their internal politics? Hardly.

Typical hallmark of a liberal: supporting the whole Tibetan protest movement uncritically.

[khad]

Fine. So, again I ask you, who would you support between Mao and Chiang? Castro and Batista? Ho and American imperialism?

And don't say that you would take a third option. There was no third option. That's the whole point.
The first world white privilege oozing from Hayenmill is disgusting.

[Havet]

The first world white privilege oozing from Hayenmill is disgusting.

And the stink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom) oozing from your post is also disgusting, y'know...

[khad]

And the stink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom) oozing from your post is also disgusting, y'know...
Because it's true.

[Havet]

Because it's true.

Because it's irrelevant. Have you ever learnt the concept of a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy)?

[IcarusAngel]

I like how some trolls on revleft apparently no better than working people what their 'good options' are, and even some 'leftists' here want to tell people of the real world that they shouldn't chose a bad alternative over an even worse one, in order to promote some 'ideal form of socialism' that, if probed on it, sounds more like Leninism or Stalinism than true socialism in the first place.

I, for one, would prefer to live in Cuba, where no one (or few) starve, than Haiti, a starving island that was attacked by the United States repeatedly in order to install a business leader. Notice how Clinton condemned Bush's turning away of the refugees that were coming from the right-wing dictatorship, and then turned even more refugees away. It was only when the moderate left-wing regime was in place when the US accepted refugees.

I would also prefer to live under a Turkish state which is getting better than a third world country that gets worse due to US imperialism (such as the 25% unemployment under Pinochet).

[RGacky3]

Typical hallmark of a liberal: supporting the whole Tibetan protest movement uncritically

DId you read my freaking post you halfwit?

I was saying that saying "The Tibeten protest movement IS AN INDEPENDANT PROTEST MOVEMENT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT UNCRITICALLY,"


Yeah yeah, heard it all before.

And you don't agree with it because???


The first world white privilege oozing from Hayenmill is disgusting.

umm, I'm sorry, where is it oozing? What are you talking about?

[leninpuncher]

Why is a member of IWW restricted?

[ls]

I would also prefer to live under a Turkish state which is getting better than a third world country that gets worse due to US imperialism (such as the 25% unemployment under Pinochet).

Turkey might be considered being third-world in some parts, in some ways http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/01/200852517292929107.html slums still exist in some parts.

You go ahead and support the Turkish state just like Chomsky, like RGacky3 the supposed "anarchist" you moron, why don't you just say you don't give a shit about the kurds at all?


I was saying that saying "The Tibeten protest movement IS AN INDEPENDANT PROTEST MOVEMENT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT UNCRITICALLY,"

I don't really care, you do support it by the seems of it.


And you don't agree with it because???

It's a misnomer and an idiotic thing to say.


Why is a member of IWW restricted?

So you don't think members of the IWW can be homophobic (I think that was what he was restricted for) or otherwise reactionary? :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

I don't really care, you do support it by the seems of it.

Can you quote where I supported it?

The most important post is the first part, "I don't really care" which is honest, you don't care about facts.


You go ahead and support the Turkish state just like Chomsky, like RGacky3 the supposed "anarchist" you moron, why don't you just say you don't give a shit about the kurds at all?

WHERE DID I SAY? I SUPPORTED THE TURKISH STATE YOUR IDIOT??? Where did Chomsky say he supported the turkish state???

Saying someone is doing something, such as not obaying a foreign power IS NOT SUPPORTING IT.

But aparently you don't care about facts or logic.


So you don't think members of the IWW can be homophobic (I think that was what he was restricted for) or otherwise reactionary?

Its anti-abortion, know what your talking about before you open your mouth.


It's a misnomer and an idiotic thing to say.


Pointing out facts is idiotic???

[Demogorgon]

Turkey might be considered being third-world in some parts, in some ways http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/01/200852517292929107.html slums still exist in some parts.

You go ahead and support the Turkish state just like Chomsky, like RGacky3 the supposed "anarchist" you moron, why don't you just say you don't give a shit about the kurds at all?

I don't really care, you do support it by the seems of it.

It's a misnomer and an idiotic thing to say.

So you don't think members of the IWW can be homophobic (I think that was what he was restricted for) or otherwise reactionary? :rolleyes:
You are making yourself out to be an utter idiot. We know you don't like Chomsky, after all nobody anyone has ever heard of can be a true leftist, but simply inventing things people have said and attacking-not even straw men, but plain figments of your imagination-is not helping your case.

[ls]

Can you quote where I supported it?

You support a more "more independent [to slaughter Kurds] Turkey" yes or no?


The most important post is the first part, "I don't really care" which is honest, you don't care about facts.

Nah, I don't care about whether what I say conforms to your dogma.


WHERE DID I SAY? I SUPPORTED THE TURKISH STATE YOUR IDIOT??? Where did Chomsky say he supported the turkish state???

He supports its 'independence' and HE SAID it is becoming more democratic? Are you denying this or what?


Saying someone is doing something, such as not obaying a foreign power IS NOT SUPPORTING IT.

But he thinks that somehow redeems them, he does not once attack them for their crimes against Kurds, he has done so long before but has seemingly gone back on this position.


Its anti-abortion, know what your talking about before you open your mouth.

Apologies for that, I wasn't actually sure and think I got you confused with someone else.


Pointing out facts is idiotic???

No, your dogma is.


You are making yourself out to be an utter idiot. We know you don't like Chomsky, after all nobody anyone has ever heard of can be a true leftist, but simply inventing things people have said and attacking-not even straw men, but plain figments of your imagination-is not helping your case.

This is a ridiculous post, you don't think Chomsky has said this because he thinks it's good that the Turkish state is becoming more independent (EVEN THOUGH IT'S A NATO MEMBER FFS)? You're wrong, fuck off.

[Demogorgon]

Now you are just positively raving. Chomsky now supports Turkish treatment of kurds because he does not refer to it on this particular occasion? I suppose he supports the Armenian genocide too as he didn't refer to that either. I suppose you support it too, after all, you never mentioned it.:rolleyes:

Chomsky said it was a good thing that the Turkish Government did not support the United States on Iraq. He points out that it originally intended to join in but public opinion forced it to change its mind. He praises this as showing an instance opf democracy, more so than was seen in Italy, Spain and Britain where public pressure failed to change Government policy. Either this is right or it is wrong. If it is wrong it means either that Turkey did not act independently and did invade Iraq or that it was never going to take part anyway, hence public pressure played no part. And indeed even if the latter is the case then it would still show the Turkish state had acted independently of the United States here. So in other words, the only way Chomsky could have been wrong would have been if Turkey actually had taken part in the invasion of Iraq.

Did it invade?

[ls]

Now you are just positively raving. Chomsky now supports Turkish treatment of kurds because he does not refer to it on this particular occasion? I suppose he supports the Armenian genocide too as he didn't refer to that either. I suppose you support it too, after all, you never mentioned it.:rolleyes:

Are you purposely being dim? Seriously.


Chomsky said it was a good thing that the Turkish Government did not support the United States on Iraq. He points out that it originally intended to join in but public opinion forced it to change its mind. He praises this as showing an instance opf democracy, more so than was seen in Italy, Spain and Britain where public pressure failed to change Government policy. Either this is right or it is wrong. If it is wrong it means either that Turkey did not act independently and did invade Iraq or that it was never going to take part anyway, hence public pressure played no part. And indeed even if the latter is the case then it would still show the Turkish state had acted independently of the United States here. So in other words, the only way Chomsky could have been wrong would have been if Turkey actually had taken part in the invasion of Iraq.

Did it invade?

It doesn't matter if public pressure took part, the fact is that the Turkish government are still butcherers, the ONLY reason they "acted independently" is because it made them look better to their public - they probably have more of an interest in doing that than you think, it is not because they are benevolent and for the people and they are certainly NOT becoming more democratic (which is what Chomsky said!).

Would you praise Saddam for being 'independent' too even though he purged lots of Kurds?

[Kayser_Soso]

For once we agree on something. The Turkish AKP government has got some misplaced affection from some uninformed liberals who buy into Gulen's bullshit and actually think that this party is truly an alternative to the military dictatorship. Turkey's opposition on Iraq has little to nothing to do with any kind of principled opposition to the US' wishes. I theorized that they must have been worried about what would happen when an unstable state has a lot of Kurds in power in the north, and there are plenty of weapons to go around. Anyone could see that this would create a suitable base area for the PKK and naturally they would not be very happy about this. Besides, since the invasion Turkey has been working with the US a lot in Iraq and does help the coalition forces in other ways, so the point is moot.

[ls]

Well, I actually have a lot more respect for you now Kayser. :p

[New Tet]

H6ROSdp2IaU

ZpQk5Jcj56w

i9QVNJYPMEo

This is a great interview for the OI, simply because the interviewer asks all the questions that right wingers here ask, tough questions, like.

Is'nt the United States a conservative country?

If not why don't people vote that way?

What about all the good things about the US?

Was'nt the Afghanistan war out of self defense?

Your parents came to the US and would have been killed in Ukraine, yet you critisize the US,.

And so on and so forth.

Would that I could think and speak like Noam!

Thank you for posting this.

[Demogorgon]

Are you purposely being dim? Seriously.

It doesn't matter if public pressure took part, the fact is that the Turkish government are still butcherers, the ONLY reason they "acted independently" is because it made them look better to their public - they probably have more of an interest in doing that than you think, it is not because they are benevolent and for the people and they are certainly NOT becoming more democratic (which is what Chomsky said!).

Would you praise Saddam for being 'independent' too even though he purged lots of Kurds?
I am not the one being dim, purposefully or otherwise.

You on the other hand are the one peddling lunacy to try and justify your hatred for Chomsky-which we both know comes from the fact he has achieved mainstream recognition and is not hiding away in ideologically pure obscurity. To claim he somehow supports the treatment of the Kurds-a cause he has long championed-because he didn't raise the issue on this occasion is just absurd and shows you not to care for any form of accuracy.

And yes Saddam Hussein was an independent actor regardless of his crimes. That isn't praise. It is simply a factual statement concerning his foreign policy.

[Kayser_Soso]

I am not the one being dim, purposefully or otherwise.

You on the other hand are the one peddling lunacy to try and justify your hatred for Chomsky-which we both know comes from the fact he has achieved mainstream recognition and is not hiding away in ideologically pure obscurity. To claim he somehow supports the treatment of the Kurds-a cause he has long championed-because he didn't raise the issue on this occasion is just absurd and shows you not to care for any form of accuracy.

And yes Saddam Hussein was an independent actor regardless of his crimes. That isn't praise. It is simply a factual statement concerning his foreign policy.

I would say Noam is an ideological purist, because anyone who does anything he doesn't like is just another historical "monster". The man makes all kinds of pronouncements about power and society that can't be qualified or explained rationally.

[RGacky3]

I would say Noam is an ideological purist, because anyone who does anything he doesn't like is just another historical "monster". The man makes all kinds of pronouncements about power and society that can't be qualified or explained rationally.

Such as?


You support a more "more independent [to slaughter Kurds] Turkey" yes or no?


No, but its not that simple, you can support the idea that a country resists imperialism while disagreeing with their internal policy. Do you support a country Yes or No is not an honeset question.

But no, I am against whats going on to the Kurds in Turkey.


He supports its 'independence' and HE SAID it is becoming more democratic? Are you denying this or what?

I don't know how that translates into him supporting the killing of Kurds, I don't think by "independance" he's refering to killing kurds, the same with it becoming more democratic. Facts are facts.


But he thinks that somehow redeems them, he does not once attack them for their crimes against Kurds, he has done so long before but has seemingly gone back on this position.

Things are not black and white, if you say one thing (a fact) about a country that seems positive that does'nt mean you support everything they do.

[Kayser_Soso]

Such as?

For example, his pronouncement that "the burden of proof is on those who wish to have power to justify why they should have it." This has never been the case throughout history.




No, but its not that simple, you can support the idea that a country resists imperialism while disagreeing with their internal policy. Do you support a country Yes or No is not an honeset question.

But no, I am against whats going on to the Kurds in Turkey.

Turkey's one time refusal to assist in Iraq counts for nothing. They have done far more to support the US since then. Turkey has a very strict conscription regime and they provide many troops for NATO missions in other countries. It was a half-assed measure, motivated by an Islamic fundamentalist party, and isn't significant enough to deserve credit.

[RGacky3]

For example, his pronouncement that "the burden of proof is on those who wish to have power to justify why they should have it." This has never been the case throughout history.

He's speaking philisophically, from an anarchists perspective, seriously, how terrible at understanding context are you?


Turkey's one time refusal to assist in Iraq counts for nothing. They have done far more to support the US since then. Turkey has a very strict conscription regime and they provide many troops for NATO missions in other countries. It was a half-assed measure, motivated by an Islamic fundamentalist party, and isn't significant enough to deserve credit.

Fine, thats your opinion, obviously chomsky thought it deserved credit, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE SUPPORTS SUPPRESSION OF THE KURDS!!! My point stands.

[Kayser_Soso]

He's speaking philisophically, from an anarchists perspective, seriously, how terrible at understanding context are you?

There is the philosophical world, and then there is the real world. Chomsky is famous for changing his position when it is convenient to do so- for example, most of the time elections don't seem to matter, because Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin. Then when an election comes up, suddenly electing the Democrat does make a difference.




Fine, thats your opinion, obviously chomsky thought it deserved credit, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE SUPPORTS SUPPRESSION OF THE KURDS!!! My point stands.

Of course he doesn't support the suppression of Kurds; he has long been an advocate of their cause. However, if you look at what Turkey refused, and what Turkey has done since then, this little act of defiance is nothing.

[IcarusAngel]

"Those in power have to justify it" is a universal truism. The burden of proof is indeed on the capitalist, on the slave owner, etc., that's why we call capitalist distortions that move away from this issue 'propaganda' in the first place.

It isn't ideological because Kings, capitalists, etc., all must justify their authority.

And of course Chomsky knows that throughout history, the people in power haven't been able to justify it. As he says there's not much more morality in the world than during Genghis Khan. But they were also challenged in one way or another, which proves Chomsky's point that they held illegitimate power.

To take power you must justify it. This is basic common sense, not an 'ideological point.'

[Patchd]

[double post fail]

[Patchd]

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1263/chomskychavez.jpg


“I have been quite interested in his policies,” Chomsky said. “Personally, I think many of them are quite constructive.” Most important, he said, Chavez seems to have the overwhelming support of the people in his country. “He has gone through six closely supervised elections,” he said.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2006092... (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060922101227133)

Source: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200711--.htm

"The important question, plainly, is what Venezuelans think about these matters. We have quite substantial evidence about this. One major source is the polls taken by Latinobarometro, the highly respected Chilean polling organization, which regularly monitors opinions in Latin America, in some depth. Their latest Latin America survey finds that Venezuela is tied for the lead with Uruguay in support for democracy and for the elected government, figures that have dramatically increased during the Chavez years. And that Venezuelans are well ahead of any other country in optimism about economic prospects. There is no shortage of bitter condemnations of Chavez in the media, but I did not see any of this reported.

My own feeling is that there is a mixture of quite promising forms of democratic participation, alongside of widespread corruption and authoritarian tendencies that are potentially dangerous. Civil liberties have been generally protected, even the harshest critics who are at all serious concede Some of the harshest criticism in the West concerns the government's refusal to renew the license of RCTV (which now broadcasts only on cable). I agreed that it was wrong. I also agreed with Western commentary that "it couldn't happen here." For very good reasons. It couldn't happen here because if there had been a military coup in the US that overthrew the government, disbanded Congress and the Supreme Court and every other democratic institution, and then was reversed by a popular uprising, and if CBS, say, had publicly supported the coup and grossly distorted what was happening so as to facilitate it, then CBS wouldn't have had its license revoked 5 years later. Rather, the owners and managers would have long ago been in prison or probably would have received the death sentence. It's fair to criticize violations of rights by an official enemy, but there should be some limits on hypocrisy. "

He's a shit anarchist, but get it right.


Oh, and if Noam Chomsky really supported Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot, then he was right 3 out of 4 times.

Or perhaps you would have supported Chiang Kai-Shek, Batista, and the American puppet regime in South Vietnam?You can oppose capitalists and authoritarian 'leftists' at the same time, it's called multitasking ;)

[IcarusAngel]

chomsky is a good left-wing anarchist. A left-wing anarchist opposes:
Capitalist economics (check)
Capitalist imperialism (clearly he is against this)
Capitalist exploitation (check)
hierarchical structures, such as businesses and corporations (check).

He is a bad 'market anarchist,' because he admits that private tyrannies are worse than state ones, as conceded by even many original anarchists.

[ls]

Wouldn't left-anarchists or like, left-wing-anarchists be like left-communists but..anarchist?

Chomsky would be pretty much as far away from being a left-wing-anarchist as possible. :p

[Kayser_Soso]

"Those in power have to justify it" is a universal truism. The burden of proof is indeed on the capitalist, on the slave owner, etc., that's why we call capitalist distortions that move away from this issue 'propaganda' in the first place.

A truism should be true. Those in power justify it pretty well via force.



And of course Chomsky knows that throughout history, the people in power haven't been able to justify it. As he says there's not much more morality in the world than during Genghis Khan. But they were also challenged in one way or another, which proves Chomsky's point that they held illegitimate power.

To take power you must justify it. This is basic common sense, not an 'ideological point.'

No you do not need to justify it, and the fact that people challenged others' power just proves that they too wanted power.

[Patchd]

IcarusAngel:
He says a lot of good stuff, but then so do a lot of Marxist-Leninists, and I still disagree with their politics. Is Chomsky still a pacifist? If so, then what relevance does that have to any form of pragmatic revolutionary Anarchism? Secondly, I remember watching an interview from back when he was younger, when he 'admitted' that not all imperialist ventures are done predominantly in the interests of the ruling class, from an Anarchist, I found that slightly weird, if not a sign of support for certain imperialist ventures, but also of the idea that the state can actually implement something beneficial for the working class without doing so in the larger interests of helping the capitalist class. If you like, I can try and dig up that video for you, it's on youtube somewhere.

Not only that, but in his defence of Venezuelan 'progress' (and he's right in a sense, material conditions of ordinary Venezuelans are being improved, but he still misrepresents it), he doesn't seem to touch too often upon the working class conditions in Venezuela, and I don't know if it's just a (not complete) lack of class politics in general, or if I've just been reading the wrong things.

[Kayser_Soso]

Chomsky is just another false alternative out there, long on complaints and short on answers.

[Demogorgon]

A truism should be true. Those in power justify it pretty well via force.

No you do not need to justify it, and the fact that people challenged others' power just proves that they too wanted power.
You are misrepresenting a normative statement as a positive statement. He is not explaining how power is taken but rather how those who have it or their supporters must be able to justify it if they are not to be challenged and overthrown.

For instance supporters of the United States Government might say that the Government is legitimate because it is constitutional. Chomsky says that is not sufficient justification and that if they can not demonstrate legitimacy according to his definition then it can justifiably be overthrown.

Similarly he would say that in a revolutionary situation, if "beloved comrade leader" is claiming he should take power to "safeguard the revolution" then he needs to demonstrate that the power he is claiming is genuinely legitimate (Chomsky of course says that it isn't), otherwise the people should resist him.

[Demogorgon]

Chomsky is just another false alternative out there, long on complaints and short on answers.
It is difficult to come up with an answer if you don't understand the problem first. I agree that Chomsky doesn't have a huge number of answers. However often those who claim to do misunderstand the problem or ignore large parts of it. If they do that, their answers are likely to be wrong.

Chomsky might not be able to offer answers, but at least taking into account what he says can be helpful in finding them.

[Kayser_Soso]

You are misrepresenting a normative statement as a positive statement. He is not explaining how power is taken but rather how those who have it or their supporters must be able to justify it if they are not to be challenged and overthrown.

For instance supporters of the United States Government might say that the Government is legitimate because it is constitutional. Chomsky says that is not sufficient justification and that if they can not demonstrate legitimacy according to his definition then it can justifiably be overthrown.

Oh Chomsky thinks it isn't sufficient. Why? Since when does he make rules?

[Demogorgon]

Oh Chomsky thinks it isn't sufficient. Why? Since when does he make rules?
Perhaps you think it is sufficient then? That we should simply accept any authority we are told to accept? Chomsky isn't making rules, he is making an argument. Once again you are determined to dislike him because he has access to mainstream media, so you hopelessly misrepresent him to justify that.

You do realise that if you are going to argue with people who are unconvinced of the merits of your position you are going to need to have a way of convincing them. If somebody asks you "why shouldn't we accept the Government?" then you need an answer. Chomsky is attempting to give one.

[Kayser_Soso]

Perhaps you think it is sufficient then? That we should simply accept any authority we are told to accept?

Authority rests on its ability to preserve itself against challenges. If it is not being challenged this does not make it legitimate, and if it is being challenged this does not necessarily make it illegitimate. Otherwise, a cappie might justifiably ask why leftists like us are so butt-hurt about people like Allende, Arbenz, or any number of democratically elected progressive leaders being overthrown. Was their authority justified just because they won elections according to the constitutional rules of their respective countries?



Chomsky isn't making rules, he is making an argument. Once again you are determined to dislike him because he has access to mainstream media, so you hopelessly misrepresent him to justify that.

He's making a bad argument. And I don't know why you get that I dislike him because of his access to the mainstream media. It's not like radicals I support never had access to the mainstream western media. Josef Stalin certainly did.

My beef with Chomsky is that he lives in a sort of la-la land of his own making, free to bless some things while condemning others, while not providing any workable alternative.



You do realise that if you are going to argue with people who are unconvinced of the merits of your position you are going to need to have a way of convincing them. If somebody asks you "why shouldn't we accept the Government?" then you need an answer. Chomsky is attempting to give one.

I would convince people by giving them practical solutions to their problems rather than self-righteous phony proverbs that belong in fortune cookies.

[Demogorgon]

Answer this then: why shouldn't we just accept those who are currently in power?

You are going to find it incredibly hard to come up with an answer that doesn't implicitly agree with Chomsky.

[Kayser_Soso]

Answer this then: why shouldn't we just accept those who are currently in power?

You are going to find it incredibly hard to come up with an answer that doesn't implicitly agree with Chomsky.


We should not accept them because they are unnecessary and produce nothing. It has nothing to to with the "legitimacy" of their power. The reality of their legitimacy is backed up by their laws and statutes and that is backed up with military power.

[Demogorgon]

We should not accept them because they are unnecessary and produce nothing.
So there is no legitimate reason for them in other words?

[Kayser_Soso]

So there is no legitimate reason for them in other words?

Legitimacy has nothing to do with it. If there is no revolution to overpower and destroy their ability to project force, they will continue to rule, despite the fact that this is largely because the working class unwittingly and/or consciously allows it to continue.

[Demogorgon]

Legitimacy has nothing to do with it. If there is no revolution to overpower and destroy their ability to project force, they will continue to rule, despite the fact that this is largely because the working class unwittingly and/or consciously allows it to continue.
What does that have to do with whether the power is justifiable though? I think you are confusing the meaning of the word legitimate. Either that or you have sent yourself down the road of a bad argument, but are too stubborn to get off it.

[Kayser_Soso]

What does that have to do with whether the power is justifiable though? I think you are confusing the meaning of the word legitimate. Either that or you have sent yourself down the road of a bad argument, but are too stubborn to get off it.

Justifiable is also irrelevant. How for example, could one class ever justify its power over another, opposing class. If we overthrew the bourgeoisie tomorrow we would not be able to justify expropriating them if we had hundreds of years to do so. We could only make it clear that this is the way things are going to be, and they can either get used to it and work like everyone else or disappear. Chomsky's ideas about power apparently are not based on materialist analysis, nor do they take into account the issue of class, which ensures that no opposing classes could ever justify their power over the other, nor would they need to.

I see Chomsky as one of a never-ending line of radical but still liberal leftists who try to create some theory on par with Marx without mentioning Marx or the more revolutionary aspects of his theories. Naomi Klein would be another.

[Antiks72]

Apparently Chomsky likes to focus on the United States' "crimes, as he calls them." I guess it's supposed to be a controversial thesis that the United States commits crimes. Hilarious. I guess the definition of a controversial thesis is a lot broader than I thought.

I did have one issue. Chomsky kind of implies that the Taliban asking for evidence means something. I doubt they would hand over someone of authority to the United States. I'm still against the war, but that's kind of a bad point of criticism. There are plenty of other better points to make.

The U.S. commits crimes like all states and empires commit crimes. Yes, that includes the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba.