I have a hard time paying much attention to anything Noam has said within the last decade. I'll admit his Manufacturing Consent was a huge huge influence on me when I was younger, and it really opened my eyes to a lot of shit when I was still new to leftism, especially having been raised in a conservative home while thinking i was actually a libertarian. I know works of Michael Parenti and Pyotr Kropotkin did a way better critique about media and similar shit, but I didn't started reading Marxist critiques till way later because I was ignorant about Marxism. Noam really did help me a lot in the early stages, but now he is more of an old man yells at cloud.
It has been said before but I do understand to extent why he is like this now. I can't imagine devoting your life to something like he did and watching it fall on so many deaf ears. A lot of his basic principles are still true to this day, but I'm not going to make excuses for all the shit he has been wrong about. I also don't think he is op like some people do, but I think he has gotten so old and scared about things and the rise of fascism and right wing populism that he jumps to worse and worse conclusions than he use to. He doesn't have much time left on this earth and I'd imagine his mortality and what he worries will happen to the world when he is gone plays a big role in what he says now a days.
Noam Chomsky is nothing more than a #resist democrat, and has been that way for a long while. If he were truly subversive, would they give him such a big platform? https://redsails.org/on-chomsky/
Yeah for sure, he has been anti-communist for as long as I've known him. Sometimes it's done in more subtle ways that people may not pick up on, but if you've read or listened to enough his work you can definitely tell he isn't the ally that many leftists think he is.
This article has a handful of valid points, but it also has some misrepresentation and some points which are like, not even points at all. I'm just going to point to a couple points that I thought were particularly bad, because this is a work day and I'm a bit busy, don't have time to write a whole essay
On political language itself:
[long Chomsky quote]
This just sounds like Sam Harris.
What? This is a non-point. I don't even know what is supposed to be meant by that.
Or later on:
Consider how he draws objectively incorrect conclusions from bad analysis in 2012:
Guantanamo is still open, but it’s unlikely that serious torture is going on at Guantanamo. There is just too much inspection. There are military lawyers present and evidence regularly coming out so I suspect that that’s not a torture chamber any more.
Is this objectively incorrect? Chomsky says that he thinks there is no longer torture happening in Gitmo in 2012, and that they are doing the torture in other places instead. The full quote (left out by the author of this blog post) makes it obvious that Chomsky believes the US was still torturing people at other locations.
There have been some presidential orders expressing disapproval of the most extreme forms of torture, but Bagram remains open and uninspected. That’s probably the worst in Afghanistan. Guantanamo is still open, but it’s unlikely that serious torture is going on at Guantanamo. There is just too much inspection. There are military lawyers present and evidence regularly coming out so I suspect that that’s not a torture chamber any more, but it still is an illegal detention chamber, and Bagram and who knows how many others are still functioning. Rendition doesn’t seem to be continuing at the level that it did, but it has been until very recently. Rendition is just sending people abroad to be tortured.
Without the clipped portions (esp the ones I've bolded), it makes it sound like Chomsky was saying that he didn't think the US tortures anymore. The author merely says that it is "objectively incorrect". Is it? Do we have evidence that torture was happening at Gitmo in 2012? And was that evidence available when Chomsky said this (in 2012)?
A bit later on:
Not content with trashing contemporary domestic resistance, Chomsky uncritically indulges in atrocity propaganda in order to condemn — with absurd and shameless hyperbole — the self-defense strategies of nations on the US State Department’s hit list:
…so maybe it’s the worst government in human history…
…so the crazy North Koreans started producing missiles and nuclear weapons again…
…so yeah, maybe the most horrible regime in human history, but the fact of the matter is the regime does want to survive, and it even wants to carry out economic development — there’s pretty general agreement about this — which it cannot do in any significant way when it’s pouring resources, very scarce resources, into weapons and missile production. So, yeah, maybe the most horrible regime in human history.
To be frank, here, this is like a complete and willfully negative and uncharitable interpretation of what he's saying. And, again, it's obvious if you read what he said. It's beyond obvious that he is not "condemning the self-defense strategy" of NK. And isn't engaging in "atrocity propaganda". The only atrocities he talks about in any detail at all is the atrocities of the US against the people in NK. Talk of NK being a brutal regime (the deceptively quoted sections) is waved off as irrelevant to the topic at hand.
And I really urge people who haven’t done it to read the official American military histories, the Air Quarterly Review, the military histories describing this. They describe it very vividly and accurately. They say, “There just weren’t any targets left. So what could we do?” Well, we decided to attack the dams, the huge dams. That’s a major war crime. People were hanged for it at Nuremberg. But put that aside. And then comes an ecstatic, gleeful description of the bombing of the dams and the huge flow of water, which was wiping out valleys and destroying the rice crop, on which Asians depend for survival—lots of racist comment, but all with exaltation and glee. You really have to read it to appreciate it. The North Koreans don’t have to bother reading it. They lived it. So when nuclear-capable B-52s are flying on their border, along with other threatening military maneuvers, they’re kind of upset about it. Strange people. And they continue to develop what they see as a potential deterrent that might protect the regime from—and the country, in fact—from destruction. This has nothing at all to do with what you think about the government. So maybe it’s the worst government in human history. OK. But these are still the facts that exist.
So, why is the United States unwilling to accept an agreement which would end the immediate threats of destruction against North Korea and, in return, freeze the weapons and missile systems? Well, I leave that to you.
So here he is saying that the self-defense strategy of the DRPK is actually not crazy and is entirely driven by rational self-interest, and whether or not the government is brutal or not is irrelevant. Obv Chomsky is an anarchist and thus, prob not a fan of Juche. The DPRK being "brutal" is brought up by him only to dismiss it because it is the obvious counterpoint that will predictably be brought up by most people who aren't extremely online leftists.
Calling them "crazy" is obviously sarcasm.
There was actually an agreement in 2005 that North Korea would completely dismantle its nuclear weapons and missile systems, end them, finish, dismantle them, in return for a nonaggression pact from the United States, an end to threats, provision by the West—that means by the United States—of a light-water reactor, which can’t produce nuclear weapons but could produce—be used for peaceful purposes, research, medical, other purposes. That was basically the agreement, 2005. Didn’t last very long. The Bush administration instantly undermined it. It dismantled the consortium that was supposed to provide the reactor. And it immediately imposed—pressured—and when the U.S. pressures, it means it happens—banks to block North Korean financial transactions, including perfectly legitimate trade. So the crazy North Koreans started producing missiles and nuclear weapons again. And that’s been the kind of record all the way through.
The obvious implication here by anyone with basic reading comprehension: The DPRK is not actually crazy, but was behaving rationally in response to the fact that the US broke that 2005 deal. A sarcastic comment that is exactly in line with the above comment where he calls them ""strange people"" who don't like nuclear bombers flying near their borders.
People seem to forget that Noam didn't write that book alone...
I mean... that’s kind understandable? Regardless of where you stand on withdrawal, leaving the Kurds to their fate at the hands of their big fascist neighbor to the north would be a bitter pill to swallow. I know that US interventionism being the “good guy” is entirely by accident, mind you.
I personally want the US to pull out no-brakes otherwise since the MIC cannot be trusted for a “gradual” withdrawal but... I don’t know.
The USA isn't there to save the Kurds. They're there to stop Syria and Russia laying pipelines.
Chomsky is saying the US "should" do it. Not that they did so earlier
Hence “by accident”. When you’re being cornered by a hungry wolf, you’d give just about anything for something to come between you two. In this case, the US.
Will the Kurds be worse off without the US?
Erdogan is currently attacking all their cities he hasn't already taken over. In occupied areas, Kurds are expelled, their property seized, and reports of rapes and murder are frequent. Had the US troops stayed, that wouldn't be the case, so I'd say no, Kurds wouldn't be worse of.
like most leftist I started with Chomsky, but most people who stick with leftism move beyond Chomsky, he's basically a radlib. The final time I took Chomsky seriously was listening to an interview he did with Robert McChesney (prof who used to be the editor of oldschool Marxist mag Monthly Review). McChesney asked Chomsky what he thought of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Chomsky celebrated it, called it the greatest victory for world Socialism. Not surprising coming from "anarchist" Chomsky. McChesney followed up with a question about which country came closest to Chomsky's version of Socialism. Chomsky answered the U.S.A. lmao.
Some people say “what could be more stupid than reading “Manufacturing Consent” then having your consent manufactured”. My response is imagine writing it
:chumpsky:
The absolute devastation of the workers movement after globalization kicked off in the 70s-80s combined with violent counter-revolution across the global south will do that to a MFer. What's the difference between a utopian and a Marxist in a time of global reaction? A fish without water is dead regardless of their theoretical understandings. Props to the real ones who kept the flame alive in the face of it all, not sure I would have been able to survive the whole 50 year stretch without cracking
Get the U.S. out of every country. I don't give a shit about "power vacuums", just stop the endless wars.
Ironically enough American troops are there and if that stops Turkish troops it’s stopping even worse imperialism. I say this as a Turkish person
Turkey literally invaded Rojava the second Trump agreed to pull the troops out (out of North Syria, obv. didn't bring them home, he isn't that stupid). Turkey is a quasi fascist dictatorship and has been fighting the Kurdish movement, especially the PKK, for a long time now.
Letting the achievements of the social revolution in Rojava go to waste because "anti-imperialism" makes you more of a leftcom than you probably think you are.
The US had a lend-lease program for the USSR in WW2
Are the Soviets also #cancelled now?
lend lease is far different than occupying territory lol that’s definitely a poor comparison. US isnt just giving them arms and saying have fun. they are injecting leverage to remove the good parts of the project as well. its not no strings attatched arrangement
Collaborating with the greatest imperial power on earth in support of destabilizing the Syrian state into a civil war then being tossed aside to the turkish wolves the moment they stop being useful simply illustrates the end result of what happens to minor powers that support American Imperialism in the classic colonialist strategy of dividing and conquering regions to be exploited.
While I do uphold critical support for their cause and wish them the best as they are forced to rebuild ties with the Syrian state, you won't find me bemoaning the fate they chose for themselves.
I can't help but think that expecting the kurds to choose instant death instead of not instant death with the chance of whatever happens because than they will at least be muh antiimperialist martyrs is not the most dialectical take here.
The fuck you speaking about, there was a choice to be had in forming a united front with the Syrian state against the encroaching imperial tiger and their "moderate rebel" dogs that would've allowed them to negotiate from a better diplomatic position than they have now where they've been forced to beg for assistance from the turkish invaders.
This is a clear demonstration to all around the world that yet again choosing to side with colonial invaders will result in you being used as another tool in the shed only to be tossed out at the earliest convenience.
Maybe after being shat on by the majority as a people makes said people wary of the majority.
Also lol at the thought that Assad wouldn't throw them to the dogs at the first given moment just so Turkey leaves them alone.
Where’s the Qanon conspiracy that Chomsky has been replaced with a body double?
What is the correct line/approach for the Kurds? Or anyone fighting for self determination. If it a people’s revolution say like Cuba, do you become their Soviet Union and help them them with money and material conditions and weapons?
I'm not positive on our line in the party but I know it goes along the common unofficially line of critical support.
What we have to examine in our time is that there is no Socialist nation that's strong enough to stave off naked western imperialism, therefore any fledgling socialist cause is left to either fend for itself and succeed in seizing power or be snuffed out in reprisal by the state or be strangled in the cradle by international imperialists.
Currently speaking we're starting to see the rise of not just China as a counterbalance to the U.S, but also the fledgling development of a league of independent states that exist outside of the U.S hegemony i.e Bolivia, DPRK, Iran, etc, banding together as a means of mutual aid and trade.
Time can only tell what developments will follow, but we can only watch with bated breath how the socialist movements in Latin America will advance while working ourselves in the imperial core to undermine it's propaganda and power in solidarity with them.
Even if they become oil mercenaries for the US to starve Syria?
^These are my questions. It seems to me like the problem with the United State's policy of interventionism is that they always use human rights and/or the right of self detrmination/sovereignty as a pretext and cover for imperialism.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that Chomsky is naive if he believes the United States even capable of being an honest actor....but is hardline non interventionism truly the only approach?
Historically interventionism, even for very principled reasons, falls apart. Nationalism is a hell of a drug to break. Two great examples are the USSR trying to liberate Poland immediately after the Russian Civil War (ended horrible, Poles felt the Soviets were imposing their values on them and taking over, created reactionary Polish sentiments in opposition) and revolutionary France in its wars to "impose" revolution on the outside, which also failed miserably.
There’s countless examples. And when it is not outright troops on the ground or drones in the sky, it is sanctions and other forms of warfare.
Internationalism not interventionism.
tinfoil take: feds send carefully crafted emails to him, pretending to be budding college anarkiddies, but subtly nudging him to support the weapons manufacturers
Holy shit what happened? The subreddit was completely in support of leaving troops in Syria when this happened, and Chomsky was proven right. 10K ISIS members got out of Kurdish prisons because of this and the Kurds were immediately murdered by Turkey. What the fuck happened in this community to make this into such a binary answer? I'm ashamed of you, I really am.
Chomsky was not in support of bombing Syria since this seems to be what this is about.
like most internet communities, the sarcastic jokes slowly become honest expressions of belief as people who aren't in on the jokes join up
My comment in support of Rojava was deleted... The US is terrible, its military is terrible, I get it. But Erdogan is fucking worse and he proved it as soon as US troops moved out of Rojava, by starting genocidal military operations. If there's one place on earth where US troops should have stayed, it's there.
If there’s one place on earth where US troops should have stayed, it’s there.
Which is why they pulled out :porky-happy:
