Chomsky named top intellectual

[kidicarus20]

LONDON (AFP) - Noam Chomsky, the American linguistics expert and US foreign policy critic, was named the world's top public intellectual, according to a new British magazine poll released.
ADVERTISEMENT

Best known for his loud and consistent criticism of the Vietnam War and US foreign policy over the last 40 years, Chomsky, 76, decisively beat Italian novelist and academic Umberto Eco and third-placed Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins to top the poll.

Now an emeritus professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky first became known for his theory of grammar developed at MIT in the 1950s, which held that the ability to form structured language is innate in the human mind.

He later became known for his political activism. He published his first collection of political writings in 1969, and has penned over 40 books.

Of 20,000 voters in the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll published this week in Prospect magazine, 4,800 voted for Chomsky to Eco's 2,500.

Vaclav Havel, the playwright and former Czech president who led Czechoslovakia's 1989 "Velvet Revolution" that toppled communism, came fourth.

Perhaps more surprising than Chomsky's victory was the dearth of young and female names at the top of the list. Only two of the top 10, pro-
Iraq war British journalist Christopher Hitchens and British novelist Salman Rushdie, were born after World War II, and the highest-placed female intellectual was Canadian journalist and activist Naomi Klein.

Voters mainly came from Britain and the United States.

Chomsky was unimpressed with the honour, telling The Guardian newspaper that polls were something "I don't pay a lot of attention to," adding that "it was probably padded by some friends of mine."
___________

Not sure if this was posted, didn't see it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051018/ts_al...le_051018152652 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051018/ts_alt_afp/britainuspeople_051018152652)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Top intellectual in what sense?

He is def. at the top of the field in linguistics, and a great critic of U.S. foreign policy, but I'm betting this isn't what they meant.

I can't help but laugh at a self-described anarchist who tells Americans to vote for Kerry.

[NE_Liberal]

Good for Noam. He is definitely one of the great thinkers of our time. If people did not vote for Kerry to try and unseat Bush who were they supposed to vote for? Kerry has major problems, but when you are talking about the only real chance for a change, Kerry was it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Or you could vote for no one and work to overthrow capitalism, which is what revolutionary leftism is about.

[kidicarus20]

His work in linguistics did revolutionize the field but it also spread over and had minor effects in Computer Science, Mathematics (Chomsky expressed in theories mathematically), and especially physiology and psychology. He changed the course from behaviorism to innate knowledge again, and his Transformative Generative Linguistics seems to have more defenders than it has attackers.

Since democrats are often a tad better than repuglicans on foreign policy I think that's what he meant when he said people should vote Kerry. Because a "dime's worth of difference" when it comes to foreign policy can mean many lives saved. Plus, the petition he and others signed said to vote for Kerry only in swing states otherwise to vote for Nader.

I think you have to overthrow capitalism step by step, not do it all at once. It does seem things are only getting worse though, and most people obviously support the system, so any "revolution" would probably be worse than US state capitalism.

_________________________________________

*Anyway my site is back up and it has some downloads, in my sig, visit*

[wet blanket]

Good for Noam. He is definitely one of the great thinkers of our time. If people did not vote for Kerry to try and unseat Bush who were they supposed to vote for? Kerry has major problems, but when you are talking about the only real chance for a change, Kerry was it.
:lol: Are you serious? According to you, the only real chance for social change is if a Democrat gets elected president? Are you that stupid?
Kerry had the exact same platform as Bush. The closest president I could compare him with would be Bill Clinton, and did anything really change when Bill Clinton was president?
The best possible thing a person could have done last election is REFUSE to participate in the elections, which are little sideshow mockeries of democracy.

That said, Chomsky should know better than to advocate a political candidate(especially capitalist scum like Nader and Kerry). He's rather good at talking about how fucked up and undemocratic our socioeconomic and political situation is, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is in terms of actually doing anything or coming out in support of an alternative, he's nowhere to be seen.

[BuyOurEverything]

I quite like Chomsky actually. His analysis of government policy and action is brilliant and he has an extremely extensive knowledge of history. I enjoy reading his writing. Having said that, it still amazes me that he has absolutely no idea how to promote change and that he actually endoreses democratic candidates, despite saying in his books that democrats (even 'far left' democrats') are every bit as bad as republicans. He documents attrocities commited by democrats and reveals the absurdity of thinking that the voter actually has a choice, yet he still promotes voting for them.

Although to be fair, he only really does this because he believes that public health and education programs are necessary for revolution and that democrats have a better record of protecting and bujilding up these things.

[Black Dagger]

I can't help but laugh at a self-described anarchist who tells Americans to vote for Kerry.

Was that really necessary in your post?

[Bannockburn]

Depending on the list, I say Noam is certainly a good social democrat. With that being said however, I don't really understand the critique of this thread. He voted for Kerry, not because of free choice, but lack thereof. Voting for Kerry is the process of getting Bush out. Its like having your death and being able to vote for either a gun, or a knife to kill yourself with. Its not really a choice, and you'll end up dead either way, but one alternative has a different form. Same thing with Bush and Kerry. Noam knows that.

Offering no real change or alternative. Nobody on the left does that. If you think that some revolution is going to happen, then you are wrong. Capital has taken control, its how we work and change that system within, and perhaps collapse within the social body. That's the thing, there is not going to be some mass revolution of global scale. Each situation is different, and unique, therefore each revolution will be unique and different, and perhaps unrecognizable to outside observers. (many Vietnam's) Nevertheless, I think Chomsky doesn't have anything on Negri. Negri, while doesn't claim to give an alternative, nevertheless gives hints of. Also, the reason why nobody on the left doesn't give “answers” is because the traditional “revolt” or the masses taking arms against their oppressors is over. Those revolutions happened, they were successful in some ways, but lost of their potential. They all know that, and aren't going to give the same old answers to new problems. New problems, new answers. The left does have answers, but nothing like “revolt: take power of new government to replace the old”.

[h&s]

I can't help but laugh at a self-described anarchist who tells Americans to vote for Kerry.



Was that really necessary in your post?
Err, he was just laughing at the hypocrasy of it.
Besides, why do people get attacked for slating anarchism when slating any other theory is virtually a sport round here?

[Black Dagger]

Where did i 'attack' anybody? CDL saw an opportunity and he took it, whilst it did concern Chomsky- it had nothing to do with this particular topic and thus was an unecessary diversion - and one that he undoubtedly enjoyed- fair enough, i was making a query- no one has been warned. Moreover, no one should be pushing sectarian lines on this board, this is not a marxist board, nor is it an anarchist board- it's for all revolutionary leftists. As such members should refrain from sectarian baiting, which is a 100% waste of time, it's divisive and counter-productive for our revolutionary goals.


why do people get attacked for slating anarchism when slating any other theory is virtually a sport round here?

They don't, sectarianism should be vehemently discouraged, it's an anti-revolutionary, anti-WC approach.

[h&s]

Where did i 'attack' anybody?
I didn't say you did.
I was just making a coment over how if someone slates anarchism there is almost always some sort of strong reaction against it, of which CDL must be used to by now.


They don't
Believe me, they do. CDL has had people have a go at him just for crtisising anarchist theory and practice, and a certain admin is known for attacking people's s views on the basis that they are Leninists.
It certainly feels like attacking Marxist theories is perfectly acceptable, but people get all offended when anarchism gets attacked.
Just an observation, that quite annoys me - the attacking of people's views is wrong, but the reaction to it is not equal, depending on what view is being attacked.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Was that really necessary in your post?

Much moreso than your questioning of it.


Err, he was just laughing at the hypocrasy of it.
Besides, why do people get attacked for slating anarchism when slating any other theory is virtually a sport round here?

Because the board [and especially the administration] is dominated by anarchists. It seems there was much more balance earlier on but it's slowly dwindling away.


Where did i 'attack' anybody? CDL saw an opportunity and he took it, whilst it did concern Chomsky- it had nothing to do with this particular topic and thus was an unecessary diversion - and one that he undoubtedly enjoyed- fair enough, i was making a query- no one has been warned.

'No one has been warned' Jeese thanks for the charity. :lol:

It had everything to do with this particular topic - NOAM CHOMSKY. Take a look at the title bar.

If someone makes a thread about baseball in Cuba and people come out bashing it that's fine - but no criticisms of 'famous anarchists' allowed eh?


Moreover, no one should be pushing sectarian lines on this board, this is not a marxist board, nor is it an anarchist board- it's for all revolutionary leftists.

Right, of which I am. I'm free to represent my ideology and put forth analysis right?

What's your issue?

All brands of communist theory are up for criticism here (find any number of threads on Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, etc.). Has that changed?


As such members should refrain from sectarian baiting, which is a 100% waste of time, it's divisive and counter-productive for our revolutionary goals.

So you're going to stop?


They don't,

:lol:


sectarianism should be vehemently discouraged, it's an anti-revolutionary, anti-WC approach.

Make sure to tell your friends.


I was just making a coment over how if someone slates anarchism there is almost always some sort of strong reaction against it, of which CDL must be used to by now.

Unfortunately, indeed I am comrade. I see it a level I don't on any of the many other boards I post on.


Believe me, they do. CDL has had people have a go at him just for crtisising anarchist theory and practice, and a certain admin is known for attacking people's s views on the basis that they are Leninists. It certainly feels like attacking Marxist theories is perfectly acceptable, but people get all offended when anarchism gets attacked.

Sure you're right. I can find several threads right now in which Leninists are trashed. Guess what? No big deal, no harassment from mods.


Just an observation, that quite annoys me -

You're not alone. Just one of the few to speak up about it.


the attacking of people's views is wrong,

But criticism isn't.


but the reaction to it is not equal, depending on what view is being attacked.

That's become quite obvious now. It's a shame, because this board has alot of potential.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:15 PM
It had everything to do with this particular topic - NOAM CHOMSKY. Take a look at the title bar.
Yeah, exactly. It's Black Dagger who's out of line here.

Anyway, about Chomsky. He's good for one thing: ponting out the unjust and bloody-handed actions of the capitalist class, and the hypocrisy of all its ideologists.

He used to be good at pointing out the purely tactical nature of their divisions, how even the conflicts and arguments within the ruling class help keep people in the framework of assuming the bosses have the right to dominate the world.

But supporting Kerry undermines all that.

Once you've learned one or two things for Chomsky, he's really not good for anything else. Certainly he's got nothing to say about how to change the world. He really doesn't get the class struggle at all, particularly the class struggle in the U.S.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Everyone here slating Chomsky for saying "vote for Kerry" is acting as if this incredibly intelligent man who writes brilliant critiques of the ruling elites, has some form of relapse every four years where he turns into a complete imbecile. Chomsky has obviously formed intelligent rational opinions on this subject and as he is the type of Socialist who values Socialism and the vote, it is not therefore that surprising that though he cannot implement Socialism he will use his vote to try and change things. I really dislike the opinion that says voting for a lesser evil or anyone for that matter is a complete waste of time. It does a great disservice to the many people who have fought and died to gain the vote. Remember a vote in a poor form of democracy is still better than no vote at all.


*Anyway my site is back up and it has some downloads, in my sig, visit*

I downloaded Chomsky vs. Perle and the second part has some audio problems, you can still hear the debate but theres a lot of other noise. Is there any way to fix this?

By the way Chomsky does a fantastic job of destroy Perle, a man considered one of the Neo-Conservative movements most prominent intellectuals. By the end of the debate all Perle can say is thats not true. He offers no real rebuttal from about the half hour mark, where as Chomsky is able to point to an endless catalogue of incidents in a detailed and rational manner. Not many leftists could do such a good job of destroying the ruling elites propaganda and lies.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I really dislike the opinion that says voting for a lesser evil or anyone for that matter is a complete waste of time.

The opinion you speak of would be called communism. Voting for one representative of the rulling class over another is a waste of time.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 28 2005, 02:39 PM
Everyone here slating Chomsky for saying "vote for Kerry" is acting as if this incredibly intelligent man who writes brilliant critiques of the ruling elites, has some form of relapse every four years where he turns into a complete imbecile.
You mean he's endorsed Democratic candidates before? News to me.

Anyway, nobody's suggested that makes him an imbecile. Plenty of smart people support the system or act as if it can be patched up to work better.

It just makes him a reformist sellout.

And a hypocrite, seeing as how Chomsky describes himself as an anarchist and pretends to criticize the Russian and Cuban revolutionary leaderships from the left.


Not many leftists could do such a good job of destroying the ruling elites propaganda and lies.

Yes, as I just said, he's good at that one thing. But as far as a real understanding of why these incidents occur, Chomsky's useless. And as far as deciding what to do about it, Chomsky's worse than useless.

Also of interest:
Response by Rene Gonzalez, one of the "Cuban 5" prisoners, to a statement signed by Chomsky and others condemning the Cuban government. (http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1151cuba.html)

One of these letters to the editor has an interesting critique of Chomsky on 9/11 (http://www.themilitant.com/2002/6644/664435.html)

[Black Dagger]

I was just making a coment over how if someone slates anarchism there is almost always some sort of strong reaction against it, of which CDL must be used to by now

Well seeing as CDL seems to find his way in to many of these threads (where 'slating' is occurring)- it's not suprising that he would be 'used' to such things.



Believe me, they do. CDL has had people have a go at him just for crtisising anarchist theory and practice,

CDL opinion of anarchism/anarchists is well-known, and sometimes the way he chooses to express his opinions needs to be more subtle- more intelligent- that's not to say that he or his posts lack intelligence- but he could articulate his criticisms in a less inflammatory way and they would be fine. I think i do understand what he sees as the flaws of anarchism, or at least some of his criticisms- and i do agree on certain issues- to an extent- people in general just need to keep political-theoretical discussion focused- and not drag threads down into marxists vs. anarchists at every turn- it's boring and pointless.



It certainly feels like attacking Marxist theories is perfectly acceptable, but people get all offended when anarchism gets attacked.

Everyone should be offended when revolutionary anti-capitalist theories of communism are attacked. Criticism of anarchism and marxism is of course acceptable, attacks on persons are of course not- and nor is baiting others by making short inflammatory statements, 'off-the-cuff', the little jabs at other peoples points of view.



Just an observation, that quite annoys me - the attacking of people's views is wrong, but the reaction to it is not equal, depending on what view is being attacked.

The main reason why i responded to CDLs' comment in this thread is because of his posting history- that is he has a history of making attacks on anarchists and of sectarian baiting. In hind-sight i should have bit my tongue- as it's not fair to act such as i did on a comment that i would have let slide had it been posted by another member. So CDL, i apologise.



Right, of which I am. I'm free to represent my ideology and put forth analysis right?

Analysis, of course, one-line jabs and sectarian baiting- no.



What's your issue?

It seems that you, and some other members, try very hard to incorporate sectarian sentiments in to as many of your posts as possible- I just don't understand- even if you disagree with anarchism- why you have to let everyone know... all the time. You're a marxist, anarchism is reformism, i get the point already!



All brands of communist theory are up for criticism here (find any number of threads on Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, etc.). Has that changed?

You know the answer to the question, there was no point in asking it. Of course 'that' has not changed.



So you're going to stop?

I have a history of sectarian baiting? News to me.


If someone makes a thread about baseball in Cuba and people come out bashing it that's fine - but no criticisms of 'famous anarchists' allowed eh?

Criticise chomsky if you wish, i agree with your criticism.



But criticism isn't.

There is a fine line between criticism and sectarianism, threads like 'anarchism is reformism' and the inflammatory content of your sig:



"For Mr. Bakunin the theory (the assembled rubbish he has scraped together from Proudhon, St. Simon, etc.) is a secondary affair--merely a means to his personal self-assertion." - Karl Marx

"If you learned from anarchism's mistakes...you wouldn't be an anarchist anymore." - Severian

That is not criticism- neither of the above quotes have any supporting evidence or show any critical analysis- they're just statements- 'anarchism is rubbish'. That is what i think is unnecessary.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 01:44 AM
Analysis, of course, one-line jabs and sectarian baiting- no.
That statement didn't need to be any longer: it "analyzed" Chomsky perfectly in one sentence.

Here it is again:
"I can't help but laugh at a self-described anarchist who tells Americans to vote for Kerry. "

You don't have to bite your tongue: you could respond to the substance. You could try to defend Chomsky; or you could agree that it's laughable for Chomsky to describe himself as an anarchist.

But declaring something off-topic just because the truth hurts, that's a somewhat authoritarian response.

And I have to notice that you don't seem to know the meaning of that word "sectarian." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_10_13-abs.htm) You seem to mean in practice: anyone who disagrees with you is a sectarian. By anti-sectarian, you seem to mean hostility and dismissiveness towards sectarians, i.e. anyone who disagrees with you.

So what you consider anti-sectarianism looks a lot like the behavior of sectarians, as most people would think of it. (And that really is a common symptom, though not the heart of sectarianism.)

Reminds me of a peice of Democratic Socialists of America literature I picked up during the 1991 Gulf War. They explained they were endorsing an antiwar rally, though they'd abstained from an earlier one, because it "contained fewer elements of the sectarian left."

God no, we can't work with sectarians!

[Black Dagger]

You don't have to bite your tongue: you could respond to the substance. You could try to defend Chomsky; or you could agree that it's laughable for Chomsky to describe himself as an anarchist.

If you'd read my post you would have read the part about how "i agree with your criticism [of Chomsky]".


But declaring something off-topic just because the truth hurts, that's a somewhat authoritarian response.

The 'truth' doesn't 'hurt'- i've not defended Chomsky nor will I, i don't regard him as an anarchist.



You seem to mean in practice: anyone who disagrees with you is a sectarian.

What a load of hog wash, whether someone is sectarian or not has nothing to do with how closely their opinion agrees with mine. Of course, some times when people are being sectarian they are expressing opinions with which i don't agree- i dont agree with sectarianism in the first place! And moreover i have my own ideas about communism, so by sheer probablity there is bound to be occasions when my ideas and the sectarianism of others coincides. Most of the time when i read overt sectarianism on the board it is either in a debate on the 'validity' of lack there of of anarchism- particularly with reference to a socialist state- or it is leninists and trotskyists arguing over a USSR issue, maybe in a 'what if?' thread or something. YouknowwhytheymurderX is usually the lone trotskyist, there's probably dozens of leninists who have had it off with him since i've been here.



By anti-sectarian, you seem to mean hostility and dismissiveness towards sectarians, i.e. anyone who disagrees with you.

Wow, what an unsubtle way of saying that i'm a sectarian- care to that back up? There's plenty of evidence to make counter-accusations with your 'record' in discussion. By anti-sectarian, i mean hostility towards people who slate communist ideas fallaciously- and usually in a completely inappropiate/ie. random context.



So what you consider anti-sectarianism looks a lot like the behavior of sectarians, as most people would think of it. (And that really is a common symptom, though not the heart of sectarianism.)

Yeah, yeah... *yawns* I love how you phrased this, 'So what you consider to be blah is actually blah- therefore you're wrong and a dirty sectarian to boot!' Don't use words like 'so' as if you've come up with a valid or 'scientific' conclusion- your 'argument' so far - Black Dagger must be a sectarian because Black Dagger is a sectarian! You don't like me (if not even personally, politically) and you were the biggest contributor to the 'anarchism is reformism' thread this side of JC1- and you can also be seen in most of the similarly-oriented threads- good for you! I hope you gain something out of it, because i really don't see 'the point'.

[Commie Rat]

Noam must be taken for his merits as his downfalls, no one has a perfect thoery

his critisim of american forigen policy if very good, I have myself read many of his papers, but he is not a hardline leftists as would probably side with the democrats or mild reformists rather then premote the widespread social changes that is our goal

[Severian]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 04:40 AM


By anti-sectarian, you seem to mean hostility and dismissiveness towards sectarians, i.e. anyone who disagrees with you.

Wow, what an unsubtle way of saying that i'm a sectarian- care to that back up?
I think you just did it for me:


You don't like me (if not even personally, politically) and you were the biggest contributor to the 'anarchism is reformism' thread this side of JC1- and you can also be seen in most of the similarly-oriented threads- good for you! I hope you gain something out of it, because i really don't see 'the point'.

I'm criticizing anarchism i.e. disagreeing with you, therefore I'm a sectarian. The word "sectarian" neatly becomes a club for bashing anyone who expresses disagreement with you, or anarchism.

I don't intend to go through your whole posting record, but here's another lovely example I turned up on an automated search. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40296&st=25&#entry1291938660)

If you don't see the point of discussing and debating the various "left" viewpoints, why are you on this (discussion) board?

****

And if you agree with CdeL's statement, it's even more mystifying why you objected to it.

[Black Dagger]

I'm criticizing anarchism i.e. disagreeing with you, therefore I'm a sectarian.

Whoa, my head is spinning just from reading that! As i said before and will repeat now, there is a fine line between critical discussion and sectarianism- a line that was virtually obliterated in that thread, JC1 made the strongest effort, but he was not the only person to cross that line. You can criticise anarchism all you like- and you should- everyone should- just don't do it in a fallacious manner.



If you don't see the point of discussing and debating the various "left" viewpoints, why are you on this (discussion) board?

Your posts are helping me revise for my philosophy exam, thanks!

You can't seem to separate sectarianism from critical discussion (and my positions on both). I thought i had made my point quite clearly in my last post - apparently not. The thread in question was a very good example of sectarianism, the title alone is a joke- and JC1 well... let's just say he's not too fond of anarchism. There was some non-sectarian criticism in that thread (of course), but that thread is possibly the worst example of non-sectarian discussions of anarchism you're likely to find on this board. As for your completely bogus question, of course i see the point in discussing and debating the various 'left' viewpoints- but as i said, only when such discussions are not spear-headed by fallacies/misrepresentations- as is so often the case in anarchist vs. marxist discussions- and i'm speaking about both sides here, just read some of the stuff in the anarchist FAQ concerning marxism- not the most objective analysis ever- but that goes both ways.



And if you agree with CdeL's statement, it's even more mystifying why you objected to it.

Please read my posts.

edit: If you wish to continue this discussion, please PM me.

[Severian]

but as i said, only when such discussions are not spear-headed by fallacies/misrepresentations-

And of course you are the Supreme Arbiter of what is and is not a fallacy or misrepresentation. Here I thought that was something to be debated, how silly of me.

If you mean someone's tone is excessively sharp or hostile, just say so.

But then you could try practisng what you preach. Speaking as someone who you accused of "rubbish" and "marxist sectarian shite" while I was attempting to calmly explain a point. A point that was made by at least one anarchist poster, too. See earlier link. I didn't even respond in kind after you insulted me!

Yet somehow you're the self-appointed arbiter of what is and is not excessive factional hostility.

And the prospect of having you club me with that "sectarian" accusation in private is even less appealing than having it happen in public.

[kidicarus20]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 28 2005, 07:55 PM

*Anyway my site is back up and it has some downloads, in my sig, visit*

I downloaded Chomsky vs. Perle and the second part has some audio problems, you can still hear the debate but theres a lot of other noise. Is there any way to fix this?

Unfortunately not, it's not your player or anything, that's just in the sound file itself. I've tried it on different players and the same things happens, and others have the same problem. Probably from a problem with the recording device or with how they transferred it from the recorder to the computer for computer formatting. Looked all over for a replacement file, can't find it. That's the only file on there that's poorly made, and I didn't make it. Still a good listen to.


By the way Chomsky does a fantastic job of destroy Perle, a man considered one of the Neo-Conservative movements most prominent intellectuals. By the end of the debate all Perle can say is thats not true. He offers no real rebuttal from about the half hour mark, where as Chomsky is able to point to an endless catalogue of incidents in a detailed and rational manner. Not many leftists could do such a good job of destroying the ruling elites propaganda and lies.

Yes, Chomsky's personal viewpoints should be put aisde when you're trying to figure out about U$ foreign policy.

Perle tried to make a case that maybe the US has done some good compared to other countries, and we had "good intentions" in Nicaragua and didn't force them to rely on the Soviet Union, but Chomsky comes back with the facts such as the fact that the US placed an embargo on Nicaragua while the US was attacking them that _forced_ Nicaragua to rely on the Soviet Union, and previously its arms were coming from all over; Chomsky makes a good piont by saying "what do you expect to happen when..." then lists the embargo and a whole host of other things the US did to force them to rely on the Soviety Union. That was a clear point for Chomsky. By the end, Perle just gave up, all he could say was that Chomsky wanted Stalinism or some mean alternative (the audience booed, then Chomsky said he wanted independence and they cheered) and used other ad-hominem attacks such as claiming Chomsky was taking a lot of time to answer and saying over and over "doesn't Chomsky talk a lot folks?" and "It's Chomsky's turn I guess he'll be done by breakfast."

I got some new files up like Propagand and Control of the public mind though.

[BuyOurEverything]

I think people should actually look into why Chomsky said people should vote for the democrats. It's not because he think's that they're actually a desirable party. It is because he believes that in America at least, public education and public health care are necessary for a revolution. If people are sick and stupid, it's much easier to control them and to prevent any anti-government action. The democrats have a history of supporting these institutions more than the republicans. He's not really saying vote for the democrats and it will make a change, he's saying vote for them and it will be easier to make a change.

You can agree or disagree with this, but at least acknoledge it.