Inside of you, there are two political theorists you must kill to be a good person
That's why you should never idolise anyone. Chomsky is brilliant but some of his positions are just imperialistic garbage.
I know, I know. but its so hard when the man has dropped the mother of all truth bombs.
Republican Party Is the “Most Dangerous Organization in Human History”
It's very sad, considering that he is pretty unarguably right on many of his criticisms of US imperialism. But God, when he's wrong... it's just counter-jerking.
Could you share any specific examples? I haven't seen or read any instances of him being that off the mark.
Digging a little -- an article (from 2009) about an interview (2005) that paraphrases the interviewee is a little suspect. Chomsky's take on the interview, in his words: "Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear."
I dunno, that example is at least 3 steps removed (interviewer, editor, article writer) from a source that already speaks plenty clearly and doesn't need much more than to be read honestly.
You don't need to be an empire to be imperialistic. And you don't need to be part of said country to simp for/against them either.
I really adored chomsky when I was a teen. Is he sort of a teen idol everyone grows out when they get older?
Not at all and criticising him like this is churlish - and putting him next to Kissinger is grotesque misrepresentation of him.
He’s been completely clear on his views on America, and why they are the subject of his focus. He, together with Herman, have revised their initial comments on The Khmer Rouge (which were not exclusive to them but held by many academics of the time) but stand by their criticism of the general media narrative at the time.
You can read this in Manufacturing Consent
No one is perfect and there are errors in his work, but no one has written more truth about American imperialism and likely no one will.
Perhaps for this reason, there are continual and considerable motivations to discredit him.
He is making it easy to discredit with comments he made even about Ukraine.
Don't get me wrong, I still really respect the man, but as I got older, I see him as an academic. I don't see him as someone who can explain how the world really works.
I haven't read probably 99.9% of what Chomsky's wrote, so I don't have a strong opinion, but from what I have read his position always ends up being much more nuisanced and reasonable than the extremist denialism random billionaire-owned MSM articles and social media comments have wanted me to believe.
Also, he is 95 for fucks sake! I could not give two shits about his opinion on Ukraine because, based on my experience with 80+ year olds, he may not even be able to remember what happened 5 minutes ago most days. You'd be a fool to judge someone's life and character based on their opinions in their twilight — quite possibly at their most vulnerable, and least capable of defending themselves.
For sure, I agree. Much respect to chomsky, a great man that influenced a lot of people for good, but I don't think he would mind a jab from me on this relatively obscure social network 🙂.
Nobody is right about everything - you can't blindly follow even the most brilliant minds.
You've gotta take the good where you find it and work out a philosophy that works for you. Plenty of good to be pulled from Chomsk
For sure. I have much respect for the man and everything he has done. The reason I stopped having him in the highest regard is not that he got some stuff wrong, but that I started taking him as academic in the sense that his view is limited by the direction of his studies. I don't think he has a deep grasp on how the world works, because he has spent more than half a century preaching the same stuff. I don't think he is the kind of man, who can step away from his work and say there is more to global politics than American hegemony, if I can exaggerate a bit. The are certain grey areas and paradoxes in the world that chomsky tries to rationalize, but fails to notice how incredibly subjective his academic viewpoint is.
What I resented recently was his comments on Ukraine, where he couldn't get out of his skin and immediately tried to put invasion of Ukraine into context of American wars. He should have been completely aware that that is exactly what the worst of Russian propagandists are saying. Ok, he is really old now, but Geez.
Anyway, incredible body of work of great importance.
I read alot of his work and have seen alot of his talks and such, but the one thing that always bothered me about him was how he’d sometimes make big claims about how society is operating, and then he’d go, “It’s all there, it’s all out in the open you can read all about it, they’re not even trying to hide it,” but then seemingly wouldn't ever give sources or elaborate on what he was talking about. I’m not an academic, I don’t know what publications you’re talking about, please enlighten me, I really want to know.
Here's a start: Understanding Power has a PDF of all the sources in the footnotes of the book by the same name. Or, if you're really looking for voluminous elaboration, this purports to be a list of source references, sorted by publisher, with links to the books.
Did you intend to link to an explicitly pro-Western, Zionist, neoconservative magazine? Not sure if I fully trust their framing, especially when it comes to someone so consistently critical of Western policy. The article is just the author (not even a member of the staff, it appears to be a letter to the editor) whining that Chomsky said the author couldn't find certain quotes and that his stance on Vietnam was hawkish, not a whole lot mentioned on anything else. I'm aware of some of Chomsky's more problematic positions, but how does this back that up what you're saying? Sounds more like a petty personal spat between a couple academics.
About Us
COMMENTARY is a highly acclaimed monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential—touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.
Mission
Since its founding in November 1945, COMMENTARY has been expression of belief in the United States, central role in the preservation and advance of Western civilization and, most immediately, the continuing existence of the Jewish people. COMMENTARY, in the words of Cohen, “is an act of faith in our possibilities in America.”More than seven decades later, the publication of COMMENTARY remains an act of faith—faith in the power of ideas, in the value of defending tradition, in the strength of the Jewish people, and in America. COMMENTARY is an act of faith in its singular approach to the consideration of the traditions of Judaism and Jewish life. The traditions of Western civilization, of which the Hebrew Bible is the wellspring, are also our constant concern. COMMENTARY is a reflection of the manifold glories of the West and the inestimable contribution it has made to the betterment of humankind. Most of all, through our publication of articles on political, historical, cultural, and theological issues, COMMENTARY is an act of faith in the transformative effect of ideas. From our beginning under Elliot E. Cohen, to Norman Podhoretz, the magazine’s second editor, to Neal Kozodoy, its third, and now to current editor John Podhoretz, COMMENTARY‘s mission remains anchored in these principles: to maintain, sustain, and cultivate the future of the Jewish people; to bear witness against anti-semitism and defend Zionism and the State of Israel; to take inventory in and increase the storehouse of the best that has been thought and said; and to stand with and for the West and its finest flowering, the United States.
Did you intend to link to an explicitly pro-Western, Zionist, neoconservative magazine?
It wasn't neoconservative at the time. Commentary used to be a liberal magazine.
I’m aware of some of Chomsky’s more problematic positions, but how does this back that up what you’re saying?
This was in support of the comment about Chomsky's tendency to dance around and misuse sources.
As someone getting a master’s degree in linguistics… yes.
Joking aside, he’s got a pretty good track record, he just goes big when he goes wrong.
Not everyone grows out of it. Like with Howard Zinn, those (rightly) disillusioned with American jingoism often find and latch onto him to justify a reversal of their (originally pro-US) Manichean worldview without concern for whether it is consistent, moral, or correct.
Noam Chomsky, a brilliant linguistics professor who is popular amongst champagne socialists and has repeatedly downplayed or outright denied various genocides (Cambodia, Serbia, Ukraine) because they were performed by anti-US forces.
Can you share context? Chompsky is pretty focused on US politics, and genocide elsewhere may be a "not my bad, man. I talk about US politics, and am not gonna spend time on a situations where the US isn't involved" which would be a reasonable reason to avoid the topic, or were they "f those guys, the power behind it is anti american."
The only info I can find is that he cagey about callkn something "genocide" in case its not the actual definition. Check his takes on the Uyghurs, he seems to want to be able to fully establish what's occurring before labelling it genocide.
Someone asked for examples elsewhere, so by reposting this I don't mean to spam it, but it gives a good overview of several such... problematic Chomsky positions.
You reveal your true nature when you openly state you need to kill something to be good.
