chomsky and moore

[legamus]

i'd like to hear opinions from people who have read books from these two (especially chomsky).

[August1991]

Chomsky: Windbag.

Moore: Pamphleteer.

[Black Dog]

Chomsky: Windbag.

Moore: Pamphleteer.

Moore: the left's answer to Limbaugh

Chomsky: unassailable.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hello legamus,,

I've never heard of Moore but will check him out.

I haven't read Chompsky but have seen him interviewed several times. His professional training is as a linguist but he has also written widely on American Foreign policy and mass media.

Much of what he says is thought provoking however he tends to be rather Anti-American. This puts into question the validity of some of his views.

Consider this:

"His critics accuse him of always writing from a pre-determined thesis that the US government is vicious and oppressive, and that its actions in foreign countries are always completely unjustified.

They say Chomsky is overly harsh on American foreign policy makers, and rarely offers any background or context on the "atrocities" he chronicles.

Critics claim that he does not criticize or discuss America's enemies or their actions very often in his texts, which, they argue, results in a very one-sided view of history.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Criticism

[Black Dog]

I haven't read Chompsky but have seen him interviewed several times. His professional training is as a linguist but he has also written widely on American Foreign policy and mass media.

Much of what he says is thought provoking however he tends to be rather Anti-American. This puts into question the validity of some of his views.

Consider this:

The linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky claimed that "anti-Americanism" is a term of vanity-- that few societies in human history have ever had such a high opinion of themselves to warrant an "ism" to describe themselves -- and he compares the term "anti-Americanism" to the terms "anti-Sovietism" and "anti-Roman," claiming that all were extremely powerful societies based more-or-less on concepts of control, and that such attitudes toward opposing views, came as a byproduct of power and the vanity that comes with power.

While mere opposition to American policies and attitudes in any or all of these categories, should not in itself be sufficient to constitute a label of "anti-Americanism," the political use of the term is heated and often violates any logical or reasonable limits to its use

His critics accuse him of always writing from a pre-determined thesis that the US government is vicious and oppressive, and that its actions in foreign countries are always completely unjustified.

This is a gross oversimplification of Chomsky's work. But hey, my sugestion would be to read him for yourself.

[Seveneighty]

Chomsky is oftentimes a genius, and an asset to society.

Moore, on the other hand, is a chump and somehwat of an embarassment--get a haircut, lose some weight, lose the hat, and dress like a human! Although one can appreciate his success at getting a liberal message out. He seems to have started the trend towards liberal books dominating the bestseller lists.

Anyhow, I don't see why you'd even compare the two.

It's almost like comparing someone like Adam Smith...to Ann Coulter.

[Seveneighty]

To the guy claiming that Chomsky is "anti-American"--if criticizing American foreign policy makes one anti-American, then theres only about fifty million people (my estimate) in the world--all living in the US--that AREN'T anti-American.

Plus, when you labelled him 'anti-American', did you take into account his NY Times interview where he says he loves where he lives and considers the US to be the best country in the world in which to live? Is that anti-American?

[Moderate Centrist]

To clarify I have nothing against Chomsky. But from what I have seen of him I would agree with the suggest that his view of things is a little one sided.

This does not mean I agree with interventionist American foreign policy.

"The linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky claimed that "anti-Americanism" is a term of vanity-- that few societies in human history have ever had such a high opinion of themselves to warrant an "ism" to describe themselves..."

Black Dog

I won't dispute the "ism" but this claim is incorrect. Trying to find a country without a high opinion of themselves may be a more difficult task.

As for egotism:

The British

The Germans

French

Chinese

Japanese

The Spanish

The Portugese

and on and on.

If you want to see the ugly side of immerialism check out the European Colonialists. Compared to their practises America is a kitten.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Moderate Centrist,

If you want to see the ugly side of immerialism check out the European Colonialists. Compared to their practises America is a kitten.

One must keep in mind that America was settled and founded by immigrants from all of those 'European colonialists'.

Further, you suggest that America is not 'colonialist', or power hungry, I offer this excerpt from the news tonight, regarding OPEC's decision to cut production...

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration was in steady contact with officials in oil-producing countries, arguing that "producers should not take steps that harm American consumers and our economy."

Further, Bush used blatant threats to oil-bearing nations with this...

In 2000, candidate Bush had pledged a get-tough response to higher oil prices from OPEC.

"What I think the president ought to do," he said in January 2000 in New Hampshire, where heating oil prices were soaring, "is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, 'We expect you to open your spigots!'"

What would he do if they didn't 'open their spigots'? Announce that, as elected president, he would invade the country with the world's largest oil reserve (Iraq) to secure American (first and foremost) interests for OPEC pricing and production numbers? Of course he couldn't say it. He is doing it, though, through Noam Chomsky's method of 'manufacturing consent'.

[Moderate Centrist]

Your comments have given me reason to rethink the term anti-Americanism. There is certainly a valid argument that the term is inappropriate and useless.

I was referring to criticisms of America with no substance rather than valid critiques of American policy - foreign or domestic.

For example the "Bush is a moron" crowd. I understand this sentiment but it is useless as a critique of American power or as a means to change the current situation.

I've spoken with several people holding this view and almost none of them can elaborate on pre-emptive strikes, the Bush Doctrine and what it means, the withdrawal from the SALT treaty or the basics of missile defense.

The current Administrations' position on these issues must be attacked in a rational, clear and concise manner so that the American people and their allies understand where the world is heading and what are the possible consequences.

Comparing America to Nazi Germany is completely ridiculous. Yet I've heard this sentiment expressed as well.

President Bush (and I'm no fan) has a legitimate responsibility to protect America. The debate centers around the best way to do this. We need moderate (I love that word) commentators from both parties to step forward and have their say.

I would concede that America is a culture and perhaps economic colonialist. However this is much different from what the Europeans( for several hundred years) and Japanese( for several decades) engaged in.

America has never come close to this level or barbarity.

Some specifics:

British Colonialism: let’s not forget the British had the largest empire in the world and also gave us the concentration camp:

“the term "concentration camp" was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during the Second Boer War. Tens of thousands of Boer civilians, and black workers from their farms, died as a result of diseases developed …”

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp

They also carried out early biological warfare on the North American Indian population and who’s colonial legacy has left the world with many of it’s current political crisis – Middle East, India Pakistan, including problems in South Africa and Northern Ireland.

The French: The Vietnam War was started by France in attempting to re-colonize Vietnam after World War two. They also fought a brutal war against Algerian independence.

The Spanish: Let’s not forget our friends Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés who both practiced early germ warfare against the natives of Central and South America.

The Japanese: Check out their pre-war and wartime actives throughout China and South East Asia. They have never fully acknowledged their atrocities during WWII and don’t even teach the proper history to their students.

Germany: The Nazi regime has left a permanent scar on her history that will never be erased. And on the colonialist side of things we have,

“In 1985, the United Nation's Whitaker Report recognized the German attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of Southwest Africa as one of the earliest attempts at genocide in the twentieth century.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Germ...uth_West_Africa

The Russians: no tradition of democratic institutions or respect for human rights to this very day. The loss of life and abuse of power under the communist regime is hard to imagine.

China: The Great Leap forward and the Culural Revolution certainly aren’t proud moments in human advancement or dignity

And let’s not forget Belgium and the Rape of the Congo:

“...the scene of native heartbreak and European brutality, greed and genocide on a colossal scale.”

The great European King Leopold

“…set in train the most brutal colonial regime in modern history.”

..."“…the Encyclopedia Britannica gives a total population decline from 20 or 30 million to 8 million.”

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

America has never come close to engaging in the kind of abuse of power of the above named, furthermore any such attempt has the potential(at least in theory) to be restrained by American public opinion. This was the case in Vietnam where public opinion had a substantial impact on the conduct of the war.

They are a world power as never before seen yet at the same time perhaps more constrained than any previous world power in history.

Does this excuse America’s current actions and wrong doing? By no means. That is not my point.

We must try to keep America’s world position in perspective. And this traces back to Chomsky and several other critics as well. They often seem to present a one sided story in which America is all wrong.

Again, Chomsky is thought provoking but the claim that he's a little one sided is justified.

[Black Dog]

We must try to keep America’s world position in perspective. And this traces back to Chomsky and several other critics as well. They often seem to present a one sided story in which America is all wrong.

Again, Chomsky is thought provoking but the claim that he's a little one sided is justified.

I fail to see why an American critic of American policy needs to attach a caveat listing the atrocities committed by other regimes throughout history when making his point.

His intention is to highlight the hypocricys of America in particular and western civilization in general, and to counter the commonly held ideas of western benevolance and alturism by demonstarting th ecountless failures of the west. In that, he has no obligation to present the "other side".

[Moderate Centrist]

My point again is a critique of American power needs context.

I hear people exclaiming that Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam and that America is heading in the same direction as Nazi Germany.

That these ideas draw mainstream news is disturbing. All the more so because they render any useful and credible criticisms of American power mute.

To hear people suggest that anarchy and communism are preferable to Democracy and western styled economic systems is ridiculous.

Noam Chomsky is an intelligent and articulate writer and speaker. However much of his critique is lending to a screwered view of America's role in the world - which has enormous potential for good as well as bad.

Again, America has never come close to committing the level of atrocities of other western powers.

When all anyone hears is how bad America is those who might be swayed to make a difference tune out.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Moderate Centrist,

When all anyone hears is how bad America is those who might be swayed to make a difference tune out.

Those that could be swayed to make a difference are largely the American people themselves.

Once the truth comes out, American Media redoubles their efforts to make sure the AmericanPublic changes the channel back to Survivor.

[Moderate Centrist]

Well when all someone hears is how evil, how corrupt and how bad they are it doesn't give much inspiration to listen.

The majority of Americans are good people who have little or no interest in the country's foreign policy, little ability to judge it and little desire to bring harm on anyone else.

These people are only going to listen to rational and well presented arguements.

[Seveneighty]

Nobody's talking about how bad "they" (the people) are.

It has everything to do with America's government, not its citizens. I'm sure Chomsky agrees.

Or are you trying to say that Americans are too dimwitted to tell the difference?

[Moderate Centrist]

We're getting a bit away from Chomsky here but many people are talking about how bad they are. I was watching a protest in Calgary last year and there was a man on a loud speaker comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler.

I've heard other comments suggesting George Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.

In all of the rhetoric I've heard very little analysis of the Bush Doctrine, missile defense and the enourmous commitments America is taking on in the world and how these will affect its' standing.

I'm not defending American policy but rather suggesting that such policy should be looked at in context.

Getting back to Chomsky, my original point was that he's one sided. This is a valid point. He is also intelligent, well spoken and offers many good points to think about as well.

[o.i.c]

Chomsky is definately thought provoking, and I have become especially interested in his theory of the U.S. eliminating the threat of a good example (i.e. politically). It can explain the recent conflict in Haiti, and this just scratches the surface, as does Moore by the way. However, I would rather him scratch away then never to have scratched at all.

As for taking things out of context, although I haven't read all of Chomsky's works, I try to check up on him, though its quite hard on the eyes. To those who believe the U.S. has a conservative, appeasing foreign policy, why not try reading the declassified U.S. National Security documents, a good primary source. The first document I read was NSC-68, which shattered my previous illusions regarding the U.S., and I'm slowly questioning Canada and Britian as well.

Another shocking revelation I came across is that the U.S. is the only state to be charged with international terrorism in the World Court for using military force in Nicaragua. The thing which is most shocking in the whole ordeal is that the U.S. essentially vetoed the verdict and decided not to acknowledge it.

Of course, I believe it is when we are in agreement with something that we should scrutinize more fervently. It is just that I have yet to hear evidence rationally defeating Chomsky. All I ever hear are personal attacks, which are irrelevant.

[o.i.c]

In all of the rhetoric I've heard very little analysis of the Bush Doctrine, missile defense and the enourmous commitments America is taking on in the world and how these will affect its' standing.

Ironic, I haven't heard truthful accounts of the good of the U.S. Maybe you could share some?

[KrustyKidd]

As for taking things out of context, although I haven't read all of Chomsky's works, I try to check up on him, though its quite hard on the eyes

I'll wiegh in on this. He's one smart mother. I don't find him hard on the eyes, just repititious in theme. I know how each chapter ends before I turn the pages.

However, It is overall an eye opener to get the details on a lot of the events he describes. However, it is skewed quite often. Take his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. In true Chomsky-speak he quotes an unknown person in the Wilson administration (speaking of the Latin American people in the early 1800s)

they are naughty children who are exercising all the rights and privilages of grown ups

Here is a typical 'Noamism' comming up folks. Watch how he once again quotes an unknown, but first, adds his own words in.

"and require" (Chomsky put that in himself, just wanted to be clear on that part.)

Then continues on with the mysterious person who is unnamed and only reffered to as "The Wilson Administration"

a stiff hand, an authoritive hand.

Was that one quote or two I wonder? He doesn't list the source as he normally does so ..... hmmmm.

I would remind Noam of two points. that was then, this is now. People those days were under the belief of manifest destiny. All of the civilised world was, not the USA only. Spain, France, Britain all shared the same belief that the world was theirs and only restricted to whether or not another power would prevent them. Is it any wonder that somebody in any administration in that day would refer to less advanced societies as children? He uses this as a valid point to establish a pattern in US foreign policy that extends to this day. Get real Noam, hang ten and chill out! His ommision of the stark reality that most other nations of the day were more aggresive in their attempts for 'Hegemony' in that day is missing. Probably doesn't fit in with his premise. Anyhow, when is his work on French Hegemony comming out I wonder? Not like they changed suddenly, when did they change I wonder, If they did. Could it have something to do with losing a couple of times in war and being rescued by the US in large part? And could that large part be a defining moment in how the US suddenly felt the need to protect loser countries that couldn't protect themselves? I mean, not like there was suddenly no threat from anybody with the Soviet Union saying chummy things like 'We will Bury the West.' Yes, I can see where the US might have felt a need to stick around a bit to make sure the French and European Citroin didn't get stuck in the mud again. Chomsky calls it Hegemoy, I might call it common sense.

His portrayal of the Monroe Doctrine is one of the US preserving the Western Hemisphere for it own uses. Chomsky, in true Chomskonian Leftie-Looping and Over- Cascadeing of Facts sees this with blinders and omits the obvious; The US had a legitimate wariness of the power of Europe and the strife that they brought to places in which they really colonised. Not the rhetorical, leftist type of 'US Imperialism' and 'Neo Colonialism' written on a sandwhichboard in downtown London or whatever by a wet protestor, but downright slavery of anybody they could put under a boot No pretentions of help, just rip out what they could leaving nothing but less than what they found. This was the reality of what Europe brought to the new world.

Think about it for a moment, you are a somewhat powerful country, isolated from other powerful countries and they come from thousands of miles away and start to colonise and influence countries ajacent to you. Are you supposed to sit by and watch all this happen without raising an eyebrow? The Monroe Dorine was less a claim of property than a 'keep out' sign to governments that were at least as hegemonic as the US was at that time and had a history more oppressive than the US has to this day..

He never entertained this, not once. The US did it to rip off the people of the Philippines, Carribian, Latin America. That's his gig and he's good at it. Some points are great, some are stretched and others are just worthless. He is so biased that he is not credible as a whole.

Another example is the Cuban Missile Crisis. He brings forth a revelation that Russia had legitimate reasons for placing the missiles in Cuba, as did Cuba for allowing them there. Very good reading BTW. From a 60s standpoint though, he loses track of a harsh reality in his thougtful tirade against US foreign policy of the day, Communism sucks. I don't feel sorry for Russia, I don't like them having nuclear missiles. I don't care that they have a corrupt and crappy slavery system to propegate. I want to keep those bastards out of our hemisphere. And, I don't feel sorry for them or give their valid reasons any credibity as Communism is evil and we will crush it whenever possible.

More later.

Note: I edited this post slightly to clarify some points. I also wish to clarify that the above para was the legitimate feeling of the US during the 60s, not my own in present day as there is no Soviet Union now.

[o.i.c]

Just curious...why do you hate Russians? Why do you think communism is evil? Why do you particularily not want Russia to own nuclear weapons? And why do you feel the U.S. (assumed from your use of 'we') should be able to "crush" communism?

[August1991]

Just curious...why do you hate Russians? Why do you think communism is evil?

I don't think KK meant that he hated Russians as such, but rather the he thought the Soviets were "totalitarian bastards" and to be kept as far away as possible.

We in the "West" have created societies where individuals are free to question authority. This is not the case elsewhere.

IMV, Chomsky uses his Western freedoms to criticise the West and to defend the kinds of societies where someone like Chomsky would probably be put in a concentration camp.

Moreover, I find he does this in long-winded vebiage with big words. But I must admit he's found a profitable niche market.

Lastly, I suspect many copies of his books are bought but never read.

[o.i.c]

I don't think KK meant that he hated Russians as such, but rather the he thought the Soviets were "totalitarian bastards" and to be kept as far away as possible.

I fail to see your argument against the definite personal dislike (maybe hate was strong) of KK towards Russians. It is one thing to question Russian principles (and by all means, I advocate questioning every and all principles), but it is quite another to engage in name calling. What does living in a totalitarian state have to do with necessarily being a bastard, and keeping away from them? Since I have yet to hear reasons for this mysterious dislike, Chomsky seems to be correct in the 'us' vs. 'them' paradigm found among Western states, and how easy it is for the elite to foster hate in your neighbour.

As for your "freedom to question authority" discussion, it seems you, among others, love the idea of freedom, but are unsure of what this actually means. You seem to like living in a free state, but dislike when another person actually uses this "freedom", like Chomsky as you say. Is this why you badger his writing style as opposed to rationally arguing the content? You are strengthening Chomsky's argument that the sentiment of anti-Americanism negates your so-called freedom.

I personally want to prove Chomsky wrong, but to date, am unable to do so, and the picture just gets worse everyday.

[August1991]

It is one thing to question Russian principles (and by all means, I advocate questioning every and all principles), but it is quite another to engage in name calling. What does living in a totalitarian state have to do with necessarily being a bastard, and keeping away from them?

Sorry, I don't get your point. I can't speak for KK but I have nothing against Russia or Russians. I have alot against Sovietism, communism and what have you.

Let me be specific. I can understand perfectly why the US government conducted a Cold War against this regime and eventually won - we should all breathe a deep sigh of relief that communism has would up on the dust heap of history.

You seem to like living in a free state, but dislike when another person actually uses this "freedom", like Chomsky as you say. Is this why you badger his writing style as opposed to rationally arguing the content?

I have absolutely no disagreement with Chomsky's right to publish nonsense using big words and to give ponderous interviews that imply a deep analytical truth. Indeed, he seems to have a successful franchise going here, and I'm sure he's made a deep analysis of that too.

I just disagree with him. Why?

Well, I came to the conclusion that the sky is blue (not green) and water is wet (not dry). You know the old line: A conservative is a liberal who was a victim of a mugging. To say the victim is guilty because he made the criminal do it is akin to saying the sky is green.

Some Statistics

In 2001, combined US and Canadian GDP was about 9.7 trillion US $. Our exports outside of North America were about 0.6 trillion US $ and our imports from outside North America about 1 trillion US $. In other words, our standard of living relies primarily on what we do here - not foreign trade. The outside world could disappear and the US (and Canada) would still be well off.

So, why does the US meddle in foreign affairs? For the fun of it?

[legamus]

haha - i actually forgot i posted this last week but i'm happy about the responses. to whoever asked why i was comparing chomsky to moore - i wasn't. i just noticed that both had books on the best-seller list and both were politically oriented so i wanted to know what people on this forum thought of them. my conclusion is that chomsky's works are at least worth reading, given the discussion it has generated. moore seems to be less interesting. my 18-yr old sister says she like that 'bowling for colombine' movie so maybe his audience is more youthful. anyways, thank y'all for your insights; carry on.

[KrustyKidd]

Just curious...why do you hate Russians?  Why do you think communism is evil?  Why do you particularily not want Russia to own nuclear weapons?  And why do you feel the U.S. (assumed from your use of 'we') should be able to "crush" communism?

Sorry all, I thought I made it clear that it was a thought process of the US in that day, not my own. forty two years later with a Russia which is totally changed. I was six years old during the crisis and hardly in any position to affect the events with any opinion that I may have had. (I think I liked the Mighty Hercules, that's all I remember of my political views of the day)

My quote from the Chomsky post;

From a 60s standpoint though, he loses track of a harsh reality in his thougtful tirade against US foreign policy of the day,