Tell Me, Again, Why I Should Doubt The Accuracy of Chomsky's Conclusions?

Because, based on my readings of his work, which appears to be founded on rock-solid scholarship, I judge the guy to be dead on the money about the true nature and motivations of U.S. power.

In a nutshell, this country has a long and horrific record of waging and financing large-scale murder in the service of U.S. business interests (see Israel, East Timor, Vietnam, Latin America).

I think Chomsky makes mainstream liberals uncomfortable.

I also think we ignore his findings at our own peril.

the three pilars of truth.

And actually, a long list of others.

Both on the facts and on the analysis. I find Chomsky very valuable, but he's just one voice. I think he's weakest when he talks about electoral politics, I think elections are much more important than he does.

They dont look at the small picture. Its easy to show how wars and actions benefit people. Its hard to show that that benefit was the cause without getting very conspiricy heavy. In the end, policy is determined by individual people, not models or groups.

...but to instinct, apetite and the general reflexoloxy of a culture permeated with greed.

Who gives a damn about the establishment's INTENTIONS? They could be pure and still allow them to committ most of the atrocities. There is enough self-delusion and unwillingness for self-examination to go around in this country.

Decades ago the Left was pilloried for failing to live up to their own good intentions; they were judged unworthy based on their habbits, weaknesses and the idea they were systemically unsound. The Left keeps attacking the Right's intentions-- How stupid is that?

watch washington burn with hipocrisy.


nobody likes the truth when it disagrees with your percieved reality.

the factory in Sudan which Clinton bombed in retaliation for the embassy bombings in E. Africa.

I recall Chomsky basically lining up with the republicans in declaring that act a "Wag the dog," saying that it was a purely civilian factory. Now, 6 years later, is there any consensus on whether that was a valid anti-terrorism attack.

Chomsky's point of view can be very enlightening and is very valuable, but i doubt he is some kind of superman who has figured out the true nature of the world.

And the fact is things arent as simple as chomsky makes them. They arent as simple as any scholar makes them, but regardless, no, he is not dead on the money. He is an intelligen man doing good and interesting work.

he doesn't make things 'simple.' that, in fact, is *the major reason* people dislike his "conclusions." he doesn't really have them. at least, not many of them. he doesn't tend to propose any easy answers, and easy answers are what people want. that's the real reason he doesn't enjoy much mainstream popularity.

He is also, of course, much more than a political thinker.

People have a tendency to get very impressed with Chomsky and start taking his word as scripture. I think that is the real reason people can get an attitude about him.

nah... couldn't be :evilgrin:

peace

There are different levels of complexity. He argues using complexities that many people dont follow, but in the end his worldview is very simplistic.

It is a problem in all academic fields. The more specific you get, and complex on the specific, the more you lose things in the overall picture. But no man is capable of juggling a million balls at once. So we take what chomsky says for what it is, it is valuable, it is good analysis, it is not 100% right and it does make both factual and logical mistakes as well as misktakes of focus.

Not me. I've just seen some angry and dismissive attitudes about him here.

Being completely on the money on topics this complicated is equivelent to being an intellectual superman.

That was a poor choice of words. Chomsky would be the first to say that he does not have all the answers. I guess my point is that I hear Chomsky angrily dismissed by what I would consider mainstream liberal intellectuals. Eric Alterman comes immediately to mind. I just don't see how an honest and intelligent person could be so dismissive of Chomsky.

Chomsky's niche is one of an outsider, and I think to a large extent he embraces it. He probably wouldnt be able to get as deep in his analysis if he was more part of the fold.

I cannot think of one issue I would disagree on.

I try to judge patterns of decision and action. I don't care as much about conscious motivation, partly because it's so difficult to determine without a candid source like the Nixon or LBJ tapes.

On that basis, Chomsky's characterization of American foreign policy is correct. To understand our history, we really have to abandon the claim that America is idealistic and intervenes out of a concern for human rights and democracy. I've seen no one break that characterization like Chomsky.

I do not always agree with him, but even in those cases, he often makes a valuable point. For example, I believe Clinton when he claims to have had intelligence that the Sudanese aspirin factory was producing chemical weapons. In any event, the real atrocity came when the US blocked any medicines from reaching the Sudan after their only pharmaceutical factory was bombed. Thousands died as a result of the lack of medicine. Chomsky is the only source I've ever read that mentions that.

right on with his politics, tho. He tried to make linguistics into a subbranch of mathematics and the field of linguistics (as in real human language) is picking up the pieces from the debris left behind after real and necessary linguistc scholarshop was religiously stamped out during latter part of the twentieth century at many centers of higher learning.

Institute Professor Noam Chomsky of linguistics has been awarded one of eight 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medals in Science given by the Franklin Institute, founded in 1824 to promote scientific inquiry and achievement. He is a medal co-winner with Douglas C. Englebart, inventor of the computer mouse and winner of the 1997 Lemelson-MIT Prize. Dr. Chomsky was recognized for "developing a system of linguistic analysis that is the basis for computer languages and insight into the process of human thought."

source...
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1998/oct28/aandh.html

peace

He relies on the existance of an unobserved, unproven and so far unscientific existance of structures in the brain, when more parsimonious explenations are better at explaining language aquisition. It relates in ways to some of the mistakes he makes in political thinking. Mistaking order for planning and causation.

even. cept for PERL ;->

peace

Now he heads his own department and teaches Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, and Philosophy of Language. He was scary smart 45 years ago -

and seems to be retaining that as he ages.

But just in the last year I know of his making time to help liberal causes he had never heard of before the request - He gets my good guy award.

But I thought Minsky was pushing LISP - and somehow Chomsky was involved back then - but I can't imagine he got involved in PERL development!

:-)

peace

:-)

but you don't back them up

hmm....

your posts are hit and run one liners

on an issue that is not saliant to this thread. If youd like to debate linguistics, pm me. THis is a politics board.

but ALL psychological theories do, even behaviorism (which claims it's based only on behavior). Even with CAT-scan movies, the brain is unobservable except at a very large scale. Theories of behavior, like language acquisition, imply

How sound his linguistic theories are, I don't know. Given when they were developed, they're bound to be based on outdated concepts of the brain. But like Freud, they may still be valuable even if they are wrong.

None of which has much to do with his political thought, any more than Newton's mathematics or physics should be judged by his theology.

thx,
Blue.

It's a very-well edited collection of talks Chomsky has given over the years. This book was my introduction to Chomsky, and it was a major revelation for me.

And no, I don't consider Chomsky to be a god or to have all the answers. I just find his work to be profoundly troubling, all the more so because it is supported by solid research.

Of course, his most famous work is 'Manufacturing Consent.' His media analysis is amazing.

keep in mind when they are hashing out LIHOP/MIHOP and such.

Chomsky shows through example in US history how Power consistently protects itself in a COMBINATION of 'bad' deliberate and merely 'neutral' systemic methods of repression of the weaker.

That is, Power is amoral and does things to prevent losing power as a matter of 'survival,' just like other entities. AND there are people and events where bad things are done intentionally and immorally to cause millions to die and starve. Both at the same time!

That's fucking complex and rational. I think that is is the most important thing to remember when we're trying to figure out who did what and why in our dysfuntional and murderous government.

Chomsky also relates a formative event from his childhood in the 1930s:
He was a small child and his mother took him out to the town where there was a labor strike of women in front of a factory. He looked on in horror as police waded into the crowd of women and started clubbing them mercilessly. In a nutshell, that began his 'Understanding Power.'

Noam Chomsky

Copyright © 1993
Table of Contents

* Editor's forward
* Source material

The main goals of US foreign policy

1. Protecting our turf
2. The liberal extreme
3. The "Grand Area"
4. Restoring the traditional order
5. Our commitment to democracy
6. The threat of a good example
7. The three-sided world

Devastation abroad

1. Our Good Neighbor policy
2. The crucifixion of El Salvador
3. Teaching Nicaragua a lesson
4. Making Guatemala a killing field
5. The invasion of Panama



6. Inoculating Southeast Asia
7. The Gulf War
8. The Iran/contra cover-up
9. The prospects for Eastern Europe
10. The world's rent-a-thug

Brainwashing at home

1. How the Cold War worked
2. The war on (certain) drugs
3. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
4. Socialism, real and fake
5. The media

The Future

1. Things have changed
2. What you can do
3. The struggle continues
4. Notes

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

free online ;->

peace

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

I'm not arguing that many of Chomsky's criticisms don't have merit. They do. But when you associate with and give support to neo-Nazis and such, many people will automatically discount anything you say as the ravings of a fringe lunatic.

typical bullshit from chomsky haters

yawn... zzZZZZ

peace

you sir, are sorely mistaken. This was covered extensively in "manufacturing consent".


Defending freedom of speech has nothing to do with the speech contained within. Chomsky was simply defending a person's right to express their views. If you are unable to understand this, then i'm not sure what to say to you other than maybe taking a course in logic.


Everyone is for free speech when it agrees with them. Free speech is free speech regardless of the views expressed.

Nowhere was I indicating that Chomsky doesn't have the right to defend whatever speech and support whomever he wants. However, a man is known by the company he keeps. If you offer support to someone whom the majority of the world finds to be repellent, don't be surprised if you are made to be a pariah as well.

As I stated, many of Chomsky's arguments have merit. I certainly don't have to agree with everything he says or does, however. Writing the foreward to a book full of Holocaust revisions makes it appear that one supports the information contained therein. I reject and repudiate that position.

nor does he support anyone in particular. He doesn't defend "whatever" speech, he doesn't necessarily support the content of the speech or the messenger, he specifically defends the right to free speech, regardless of what is being said and regardless of who says it.

So, Chomsky does not automatically "keep the company" of anyone who's right to free speech he defends.

:shrug:

I'm referring to his general conclusion, which I stated in my post:

This country has a long and horrific record of waging and financing large-scale murder in the service of U.S. business interests.

His writing on U.S. foreign policy are based on that premise. Read his latest book, Hegemony or Survival.

hear hear.

One only has to have limited knowledge of american history to understand that.

John Kerry?

"This country has a long and horrific record of waging and financing large-scale murder in the service of U.S. business interests."

I think MOST wars all over the world would fit this criteria to a certain extent. War's are waged for financial gain. Wars in the US are certainly waged in a manner that considers the benefit to business. I don't disagree with him here at all ...

I simply think he has reached conclusions about many things, and I didn't know the statement you made was a huge revelation for most "liberals"?

Pardon the confusion.

"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11.

especially right after the fact when not many folks knew anything.

he has toned down his earlier criticism of CT regarding 911 when i've heard the subject raised the few times i have caught him since 02.

he ain't as up to speed as the DU is on that day, thats for sure, and he's probably too busy to ever get there.

anyways... BUSH KNEW.

peace

When talking to Charlie Rose, he claimed that at the Azores summit Bush and Blair said they would invade Iraq anyway if Saddam went into exile. This wasn't strictly true--Ari Fleischer made that statement in Bush's name around the same period, but Bush and Blair did NOT make it at the Azores on TV, or in theiur joint statement from that summit. Chomsky's point was accurate, but what he cited wasn't true.

:-)

:toast:

:-)

His point was still correct, he just got the messenger wrong. However it does add to the effect, I suppose, to have Bush say it in place of Ari.

us to do our investigations and draw our own conclusions.

i have yet to hear him speak, or read something of his, where he does not cite his sources and encourages independent verification, and thinking.

it is his 'think for yourself' message that makes Chomsky extremely dangerous,imo.

though i'd like to add that though the US is probably the worst nation at this, it's really "the west" or better: all 1st world nations who are doing this.