Chomsky logic too deadly?

[JudeObscure84]

I have a bone to pick with Professor Chomsky. It seems as though that in order to remain logically consistent with his views Chomsky plainly has had some mishaps by indirectly siding with tyranical regimes. I will refrain from sounding like a right winger in trying to pit him as "anti-american" but I will say that he tries hard to rationalize rather pathaological movements that openly call for violence and are as unpredictable and deadly as a hurricane.

For all you loyal fans, what did he really mean by this?


Prof. CHOMSKY: It has nothing to do with our values. In fact, they're objecting to the fact--openly and overtly, to the fact that we oppose democracy in the region. One of the main things stressed by the monied Muslims is US opposition to democratic tendency.

Does he mean most of the radical fronts like Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Govt., Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood? Or the Baathist, Mubarak, secular statist regimes that openly hate us as well? I mean if anything the US is helping out the leader of the democratic front in Egypt, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Iranian student movement, and the Kurds.

Now I am not naive, the US is a hypcrite nation, but Chomsky's claimes are false. The liberal elements in the middle east are far and few between. There are mainly three factions that compromise mid east politics. Secular Statist, Islamic Fundamentalist, and Democratic Reform (socialists, free market libertarians, consti. monarchists). The US in the past has sided with the Secular Statists over the fundamentalists, and now openly backs the democratic reformers against the two other factions. So for Chomsky to add that the grievences in the Middle East against the US is soley because of anti-democratic support is somewhat wrong. Most of the anger directed at the US is because of Islamic fundamentalist supporters that wish to eliminate US secular support of people like Mubarak. The other faction is because the Middle East dictators have thier broad base of support and openly champion against the West as well to rally thier secular nationalist support.

So for Chomsky to again make claims like this only highlight that he is too rational for his own good when trying to make sense of a complex issue. He is sadly repeating another Khmer Rouge.

[JKP]

"We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... We should cease to talk about vague and..., unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
-George Kennan


The idea that the United States is a "beacon of liberty" spreading democracy throughout the world, is grossly out of step with reality. South America had so many democratically elected governments overthrown by the U.S, I've lost count.

And as for the middle-east, the sponsorship of dicators like Reza Shah and Saddam Hussein shows exactly what the commitment to (bourgeoisie) democracy is; absolutely none.

Additionally, the massive amounts of aid that go to governments that commit massive human rights violations, such as Turkey(they have a genocidal policy against the kurds) and Israel don't help either.

[JudeObscure84]

Oh gosh you people are not Marxists. Even Marx saw interventions as a means to an end. He atleast supported the Unions efforts to crush the Confederate South and wrote an opinion piece of the UK's colonization of India hoping it would atleast bring about western democracy to what he dubbed "oriental despotism".

So whatever that little tirade you posted had to do with I posted I dont know. You are just using the same xonsistent "logic" to undermine any effort what so ever to bring down a tyrant like Saddam or the current insurgents.

[Monty Cantsin]

From my understanding Chomsky supports “self-determination” of a nation within reason (i.e. within universal declaration of human rights). The problem faced with American backing of ‘democracy’ is that in countries such as Egypt the major opposition group the Muslim brother hoods isn’t a secular group. So if Egypt had democracy they would have a Muslim state. The other problem is that America does support ‘extremist’ groups, dictatorships and human rights abusers. so Chomsky supports human rights and democracy in the fuller sense but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a group you can support on the ground but only groups you can criticise.

[JudeObscure84]

From my understanding Chomsky supports “self-determination” of a nation within reason (i.e. within universal declaration of human rights).

You mean within reason with the Vietcong and the Khmer Rouge? I dont wanna stem into a Chomsky debate on his past writings but I highly doubt his stance on what constitutes a "self determination" struggle. Even anarchists denounce Chomsky as a poser.


The problem faced with American backing of ‘democracy’ is that in countries such as Egypt the major opposition group the Muslim brother hoods isn’t a secular group. So if Egypt had democracy they would have a Muslim state
But thats not who the US backs. Its a complex situation. The US backs Kifaya movement. The larger opposition is the Islamist movements who hate both the democratic and the secular statist dictators. IT just seems to me that when it comes to the Middle East, Chomsky and several of the Western leftists suddenly become right wing isolationists and opt for containment or advocate Islamists.


The other problem is that America does support ‘extremist’ groups, dictatorships and human rights abusers. so Chomsky supports human rights and democracy in the fuller sense but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a group you can support on the ground but only groups you can criticise.

I think the notion is DID support extremist groups. So again by using the consistent logic of the cold war the US can do no good and should not be obliged to do so, so the only option is to leave the status quo in MidEast or support radical Islamist groups(Hamas, Hezbollah) as an alternative.

[JKP]

You do know who George Kennan is right?

[KickMcCann]

This dillema is a mess of tangled rope in definite need of straightening out, I'm sure you can all see this. Lets start by seperating the factors.

For the US Gov't its actions relate to the following interests:

-Continuation of American dominance internationally (see George Kennan)
-The installation of friendly foreign gov'ts to insure that domination
-The continued stability of its allies and partners, at any cost
-The continued instability of potential competitors and enemies
-The liberalisation of foreign markets for the benefit of American capitalists
-The support of opposition movements as an end to gain favors from groups with the potential for success, and to destablize unfriendly authoritarian gov'ts.

Its realPolitik at its best, the US government's #1 value is its own survival, and it will do anything to insure it.

In Iran, the US wants democracy and supports the student movement because it threatens the unfriendly Iranian Government. Iran is a competitive threat to American military dominance and political influence. If the student movement ever succeeds, there's a good chance they will be friendly to the US and its demands.

In Egypt, the US is happy with the authoritarian statism, its a big economic market, a willing ally politically and militarily. But it does not want democracy there because the majority of the population would establish a democratic government unfriendly to the US. The US calls for democracy in Egypt, but it is a meager, concessionary, top-to-bottom democracy that leads to greater support and loyalty for those currently in power.

Its the same case throughout history and today, and across the globe. The only way the US gov't can maintain its high living standards and consumption rate, the consumerism that pacifies the population and gaurantees their continued support for the gov't, is to play dirty across the world, lying, cheating, and stealing to get the goods for the american people; that's what their elected to do, whether americans realise it or not.

Now we on the left have to look at our many, varied values and material obligations.

-We want self-determination for all peoples of the world
-we want all people to be properous, free and have democratic control of their lives
-We want an end to American dominance, but also the prevention of any other nation's dominance

more specifically

-we want an end to capitalism and the emergence of democratic economics
-internationalism, world peace
-an end to national, ethnic and religious conflicts, and the destruction of any ideologies expousing them

Now where the rope tangles is that sometimes, the desires of the American gov't and the left converge, and in other circumstances they conflict. There are plenty of tyrants and extremists that we on the left oppose, and some of them are opposed (for different reasons) by the American government. In those circumstances the US will either look at us neutrally or even give us some support.
But if we want democracy in US-friendly dictatorship, we are considered radicals and terrorists.
In the case of Egypt, the US supports the Statists and their call for limited democracy, but not real democracy, which would give their ideological opponents power. We socialists want real democracy in Egypt, we want self-determination for them, but at the same time, we don't want a theocracy, we want socialism.

(But its possible I'm jumping to conclusions, how theocratic and reactionary is the Muslim Brotherhood, and have they been tempered by their widespread popularity? Are they a real threat to democracy and socialism? Or is extremism the excuse given to keep them suppressed?)

So we are faced with the same realpolitik, do we support real democracy and the election of a group that would probably execute socialists, or do we continue tolerating the state that is barely concerned with us, and find some other way to gain power?

Also as socialists, do we seek socialism because it means the greater good for humanity, or do we seek socialism for itself? Would we be willing to comprimise, meet in the middle and support a group that isn't socialist or anti-socialist in order to gain the people a better quality of life, i.e- capitalism over feudalism?

[JudeObscure84]

How can you write this long tirade and not keep up with US foreign policy that openly supports and donates to Egyptian opposition groups? Unless you want the US to take down all the regimes in the mid east do not knock what its doing so far as soley coniving. Its history is not marked by the Cold War alone. This is an entirely different stradegy that differs from the Kissinger Doctrine. This is more like the Truman Doctrine. Both interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq couild be compared to the Truman interventions in South Korea and Greece.

Even Karl Marx, supported means to an ends when it came to world events. George Orwell did as well and chided pacifists as doing nothing but attacking western interests to fill thier own prenotions of world economics.

You people are not the same as the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, those that fought Fascism in WWII, Adam Michnik, Vaclav Havel and the Soviet dissidents, and the Kurdish Peshmerga who fight real wars against fascists like Saddam. They dont care if US supported this or that, because to remain logically consistent is to remain consistent with supporting the status quo in the Middle East.
Atleast the Americans see Socialists as a liberal force and welcome them into Iraqi politics. The Lebanese Socialist Party leader who's father was killed by Baathist Syrian President Assad sees the efforts made in Iraq as the falling of the wall in the Mid East. They offered to join Bush in his attempt at a Cedar Revolution. Even the Student Movements in Iran side with Bush as do the Social Democrats of exiled Iranians and the Constituional Monarchists exiled in America.
To rationalize everything on the basis of preconcieved notions on what you constitute a consistent moral intervention will lead to nowhere. No successful attempt has ever been made that has followed all your guidelines and there most likely will never be one. A country does not have allies but interests, and if those interests meet humanitarian needs than so be it.

[JudeObscure84]

Also as socialists, do we seek socialism because it means the greater good for humanity, or do we seek socialism for itself? Would we be willing to comprimise, meet in the middle and support a group that isn't socialist or anti-socialist in order to gain the people a better quality of life, i.e- capitalism over feudalism?

But the US is allowing these once oppressed groups like the Iraqi Communist Party and the Socialist Party of Kurdistan to compete in elections. The leader of Iraq right now is a Communist!

I was just trying to point out that todays left movements would rather fight side by side against US Empire rather than the democratic forces of the Kurdish Peshmerga, the countries of Denmark, Italy, Holland and Australia. Instead they opt to cheer for the Iraqi resistence mainly composed of Baathists, Facscists, Nationalists and Islamists.

* On a side note I would also like to say that even if the arguments in here claim that there are other people besides the mentioned groups in the Iraqi Resistence this only restates my point that these are the very people lining up to side with Fascsists to deny US hegemony.

[JKP]

I completely disagree with the theological motivations of the Iraq resistance, but since that's the strain of resistance that they have decided to use, I have no choice but to support them, albiet quite reluctantly. However, U.S imperialism must be defeated at all costs. That way, they could actually develop into a modern captalist country like Turkey or Iran.