Noam Chomsky on Latin America in the UN

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwhKE2CnRHM&feature=related

My favorate truths he points out.

Latin America takes democracy much more serious than the US and Europe.

The Venezuelan regiem is the most popular in the hemisphere.

Its reported that Evo Morales is acting like a dictator and undemocratic becuase he does dictatorial things like nationalize gas resources .... in accordance with the will 95% of the population, also he adopted Chaveses programs, like aid for the poor and social welfare, which proves he's a second hitler. :P

Also, the good news that he points out that the US is loosing its control of Latin America, they can't use violence that much, or economy stranglation.

Here are my thoughts. The US has a stranglehold still on countries like Colombia and Mexico, Both of which have serious internal population problems (i.e. a lot of people support social revolution), and also have serious organized crime programs. In Columbia the US has the war on drugs which it used essencailly to crush and social change groups, from labor unions and human rights groups, to marxist groups.

In Mexico The social change groups were essencailly dealt with through EXTREME violence, very open and clear, (Oaxaca, Atenco, and other places). Although now Organized crime is such a huge problem that social change is'nt much of a threat, but don't be supprised if the same strategy employed in Colombia is employed in Mexico. (In colombia the organized crime is significantly weekend, but the "war on drugs" continues there to get rid of social change groups).

The US lost in Venezuela, and they Lost in Bolivia. Brazil, although the left is strong there, has'nt really done anything serious to threaten American interests. Equador is going that way, and it seams the US is loosing there too. So Lefitst independance movements in Latin America are taking hold, take along with that smaller more anarchist revolutionary groups like factory takeovers in Argentina, Zapatistas in Chiapas.

So right now I think the US is gonna have to give those areas up. The US is going to hold on to Colombia and Mexico (known as the perfect dictatorship), I think the left in Latin America is gonna get stronger, and if the US feels like its gonna take further losses, I'm gonna go off an a limb here and say expect violence, expect coups and expect serious economic battles. But I think utimately the US is gonna loose control of Latin America (not totally for coarse for now), and I think they lost it in 2002 with the failed coup in Venezuela.

[ComradeMan]

My favorate truths he points out.

I like reading Chomsky too-- but be careful with accepting what he says as "truths" too. He has been criticised from the right, but also the left- too.

;)

[RGacky3]

I call them truths ..... because they are facts.

His criticisms has usually been him criticizing the US and not other people, from the left its him criticising the USSR or for saying positive things about the US.

But he's never been called out on the facts, he's known for being extremely meticulous when it comes to the facts.

As far as his moral positions, I actually agree, "we are responsible for what WE do. Its easy for a soviet citizen to criticise the US, but he's responsible for what his society does, I"m responsible for the what the society I live in does." Which I kind of agree with.

[ComradeMan]

I call them truths ..... because they are facts.

His criticisms has usually been him criticizing the US and not other people, from the left its him criticising the USSR or for saying positive things about the US.

But he's never been called out on the facts, he's known for being extremely meticulous when it comes to the facts.

As far as his moral positions, I actually agree, "we are responsible for what WE do. Its easy for a soviet citizen to criticise the US, but he's responsible for what his society does, I"m responsible for the what the society I live in does." Which I kind of agree with.


He was called out for his "facts" on Cambodia.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

But, hey, I like Chomsky's work- I am just cautious about heralding anyone as a dispenser of the "truth".

[Jimmie Higgins]

So right now I think the US is gonna have to give those areas up. The US is going to hold on to Colombia and Mexico (known as the perfect dictatorship), I think the left in Latin America is gonna get stronger, and if the US feels like its gonna take further losses, I'm gonna go off an a limb here and say expect violence, expect coups and expect serious economic battles. But I think utimately the US is gonna loose control of Latin America (not totally for coarse for now), and I think they lost it in 2002 with the failed coup in Venezuela.

I really thought everything you said was all right-on, but the one thing I disagree with is this last point - well maybe not that much:lol:. I think for the US to really give up on "its backyard" it would probably take an actual revolution or at least a major revolutionary movement in Latin America and an anti-imperialist and solidarity movement at least as significant as the anti-Vietnam war movement in the US. If the US is willing to destroy Vietnam, it would do just as much if not more to Latin America. Latin America is to the US what Algeria was to the French or India for the British Empire. To really loose influence in the area would not just be a economic and strategic loss for them, it would ideologically shake the US to the core.

[RGacky3]

But, hey, I like Chomsky's work- I am just cautious about heralding anyone as a dispenser of the "truth".

Sure, But those points are points that are factually true.

As far as those Cambodia points .... they seam very very much up to viewpoints rather than actual numbers and facts.


I think for the US to really give up on "its backyard" it would probably take an actual revolution or at least a major revolutionary movement in Latin America and an anti-imperialist and solidarity movement at least as significant as the anti-Vietnam war movement in the US. If the US is willing to destroy Vietnam, it would do just as much if not more to Latin America. Latin America is to the US what Algeria was to the French or India for the British Empire. To really loose influence in the area would not just be a economic and strategic loss for them, it would ideologically shake the US to the core.

I agree, but then why is it, that up till now, it seams like the US has given up Venezuela, Bolivia and kind of Equador?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1932422]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwhKE2CnRHM&feature=related

My favorate truths he points out.

Latin America takes democracy much more serious than the US and Europe.

The Venezuelan regiem is the most popular in the hemisphere.

Its reported that Evo Morales is acting like a dictator and undemocratic becuase he does dictatorial things like nationalize gas resources .... in accordance with the will 95% of the population, also he adopted Chaveses programs, like aid for the poor and social welfare, which proves he's a second hitler. :P

Well, Hitler was popular also.

Though Chomsky is correct-- Chavez is popular (although recent electoral setbacks suggest not quite as popular). Chomsky & Co. would argue that he can do whatever he wishes.
I suppose there is a certain truth to that logic- democracy is rule of the majority over he minority. But as Chavez has been demonstrating, simply being popular and "democratic" is in no way, standing alone, an argument for increased freedom and liberties. If demonstrates the totalitarian tendencies of democracy-- tendencies which Chomsky & Co. have no problem adopting.

[Baseball]

The US lost in Venezuela, and they Lost in Bolivia. Brazil, although the left is strong there, has'nt really done anything serious to threaten American interests. Equador is going that way, and it seams the US is loosing there too. So Lefitst independance movements in Latin America are taking hold, take along with that smaller more anarchist revolutionary groups like factory takeovers in Argentina, Zapatistas in Chiapas.

So right now I think the US is gonna have to give those areas up. The US is going to hold on to Colombia and Mexico (known as the perfect dictatorship), I think the left in Latin America is gonna get stronger, and if the US feels like its gonna take further losses, I'm gonna go off an a limb here and say expect violence, expect coups and expect serious economic battles. But I think utimately the US is gonna loose control of Latin America (not totally for coarse for now), and I think they lost it in 2002 with the failed coup in Venezuela.

And btw, these countries are looking to support from russia, China and Iran.

How does a leftist think this is an improvement? Particularly since that support is not based upon anything other than trying to knock down the USA a peg or two.

[RGacky3]

Well, Hitler was popular also.


We're talking about the whole hemisphere now :), and Chavez is'nt Hitler, hell, Bush was closer to Hitler than Chavez will ever be.


Chomsky & Co. would argue that he can do whatever he wishes.
I suppose there is a certain truth to that logic- democracy is rule of the majority over he minority.

I don't think thats what he would argue at all, thats just what your saying. I think what he would argue is that the US can't tell him to do anything, in which case he's absolutely correct.


But as Chavez has been demonstrating, simply being popular and "democratic" is in no way, standing alone, an argument for increased freedom and liberties. If demonstrates the totalitarian tendencies of democracy-- tendencies which Chomsky & Co. have no problem adopting.

What totalitarian tendencies? Totalitarian tendancies of demcoracy? as opposed to the "freedom" tendancies of Capitalism?

I love your logic here.

But I guess real freedom, is like in Colombia right? Without that pesky democracy, where corporations can literally murder union organizers.

[RGacky3]

How does a leftist think this is an improvement? Particularly since that support is not based upon anything other than trying to knock down the USA a peg or two.

Iran is'nt an imperialistic power that can force any control.

China and Russua are, but as far as I can see has'vt tried to control things in Latin America (they have in China). But the US has a history of trying to dominate Latin America, and dealing with a country not trying to dominate you is a peg up.

[freepalestine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwhKE2CnRHM&feature=related
good info/book :




http://bks0.books.google.co.uk/books?id=XixVPgAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&sig=ACfU3U1KvBIfhabNQV9QiLMI2pyrQCLiPw
Noam Chomsky (http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Noam+Chomsky%22)
6 Reviews (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XixVPgAACAAJ&dq=hopes+and+prospects&sitesec=reviews)
HAMISH HAMILTON, 2010 - 192 pages

In this urgent new book, Noam Chomsky surveys the threats and prospects of our early twenty-first century. Exploring challenges such as the growing gap between North and South, American exceptionalism (even under Obama), the fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israeli assault on Gaza and the recent financial bailouts, he also sees hope for the future and a way to move forward - in the so-called democratic wave in Latin America and in the global solidarity movements which suggest `real progress towards freedom and justice`. Hopes and Prospects is essential reading for anyone who is concerned about the primary challenges still facing the human race and is wondering where ..« Less
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XixVPgAACAAJ&dq=hopes%20and%20prospects&source=gbs_book_other_versions

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree, but then why is it, that up till now, it seams like the US has given up Venezuela, Bolivia and kind of Equador?Being militarily bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpopularity of these wars, failing to remove Chavez in the coup attempt.

But the US is trying to refocus IMO - primarily right now by trying to promote Colombia as a political and military counter-weight against Chavez and Morales.

[RGacky3]

Do you think its going to work? Right now the Colombia model is pretty damn unpopular in Latin America.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you think its going to work? :lol:Good question. The economic crisis has really made everything unstable and up in the air (on a side note, I'm really curious to see how this effects these populist governments in Latin America). The US can't leave the middle east and can't really "finish" their project there either, so that's keeping their hands tied a little... China is moving in on Africa and the US has set-up Afri-Com (or something to that effect) to coordinate their imperial ambitions there. So the whole world is just really unstable because of the crisis and that makes for some really dramatic and dynamic possibilities (good or bad). The US is like Great Britain before WWI right now - desperately trying to cling to a global order that is in flux. The danger is that even if the US starts slipping economically or in its control over various regions, it still has the military might and it's scary to think what that means when the US ruling class starts to really feel its empire crumbling.


Right now the Colombia model is pretty damn unpopular in Latin America.True, but so is Israel -- but US backing still allows them to be the regional whip to enforce US interests.

[RGacky3]

The US is like Great Britain before WWI right now - desperately trying to cling to a global order that is in flux. The danger is that even if the US starts slipping economically or in its control over various regions, it still has the military might and it's scary to think what that means when the US ruling class starts to really feel its empire crumbling.


Thats what I'm thinking now, the US in the last 10 years or so has suffered MAJOR losses in international power, Iraq was a disaster, they're loosing Latin America, they still have Saudi Arabia but even there China has been doing more and more deals with them.

Europe is still squarely on the United States side but the US can't really push them around. Parts of South East Asia are still very much controlled by the US.

But overall it seams like the US is a dying Empire, but your right about the military. Although even thats getting harder and harder to use, 1. Due to pressure from the American public and 2. Because it simply does'nt work that well any more, I may be wrong though.


True, but so is Israel -- but US backing still allows them to be the regional whip to enforce US interests.

Israel has really no say in the region at all apart from its control of palestine.

When it comes to outside of Palestine, the US would never use Isreal as a whip to influence other states, the US uses its own power. If Israel tried to use US backing to threaten Saudi Arabia, there would be a MAJOR backlash and Israel would be severely punished.

[Dean]

He was called out for his "facts" on Cambodia.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

But, hey, I like Chomsky's work- I am just cautious about heralding anyone as a dispenser of the "truth".

This is probably the most famous example. But humans aren't the measure of our sum of knowledge.

Chomsky was relying on knowledge that was available at the time. How many people supported the USSR before the extent of its failures was evident?

I'd be interested to see how much solid reporting there was at the time of Chomsky's defense of the Khmer Rouge that the latter had actually done anything wrong. I bet he was just as in the dark as everyone else, but didn't buy into the western antagonism.

[ComradeMan]

This is probably the most famous example. But humans aren't the measure of our sum of knowledge.

Chomsky was relying on knowledge that was available at the time. How many people supported the USSR before the extent of its failures was evident?

I'd be interested to see how much solid reporting there was at the time of Chomsky's defense of the Khmer Rouge that the latter had actually done anything wrong. I bet he was just as in the dark as everyone else, but didn't buy into the western antagonism.

I agree 100%- like I said before, I wasn't calling out Gacky or Chomsky, just pointing out that we should be careful when throwing the word "truths" around- especially when it comes to politics- I'm sure Chomsky would agree on this too.

I think there was a big mindfuck at the time with the Khmer Rouge- a lot of people initially probably thought (given it was the mid-70s) hey, a great socialist revolution and victory etc etc and then when the shit started to come out that was happening it was like.... OMG this can't be true- it must be imperialist propaganda.... if you get me.

On the other hand I have always thought that this group's credentials were dubious and their later support by the US and Thailand seem to confirm it.