What you think of Chomsky?

I don't know much about him at all. We did a bit of him in first year during the linguistics section of the course.

**shrug**

Someone said to me the best bit was at the beginning, watching the poor phil soc rep being pushed off the stage by the l+h auditor-that is sooo typical of the bigger societys to get all the glory!

I don't rate him. I saw him on Prime Time and it did seem to me like he was avoiding questions.

He wasn't avoiding questions, he was batting off childish second-hand insults and accusations by a very third rate RTE journalist.

As for the lectures, unlike most, I went to hear what he said. Having studied democracy promotion, I knew more about his first lecture, on which he was pretty much spot on in my opinion. The Thursday lecture was boring.

He's not a man for rhetorical flourishes, he's a man of facts forensically assembled. In a world of bluster and hyperbole, with politicians and pseudo-intellectuals touting lies left right and centre, it's good to have someone who you can disagree with but someone who you can't deny has a huge amount of moral integrity and analytical consistency.

Analytical consistency? The guy doesn't answer any uncomfortable questions, rather he tries to alter the actual questions.

You're basing this opinion on what? One interview?

Mark Little, in my opinion, kept asking the same question in different ways which amounted to, "Mr. Chomsky, isn't it true people disagree with you?" In some cases, he got to some real substantive questions about Cambodia, the Faurisson affair and Serbia. On Serbia, Chomsky openly cited official documents and explained his own analysis on the issue, taking head on OSCE claims about the US decision to strike.

For the record, I think he mischaracterises the conflict as being sparked off by one moment, but I believe he's entirely correct to assert that the US/NATO bombing predated the UN resolution and did, indeed, lead to an excalation of atrocities. On the other hand, I think others misrepresent what he actually said: he said the US circumvented international law, the effect of which was an escalation in Milosevic's murder spree.

He has made some odd omissions from time-to-time, though. In the Times interview last Saturday, he said he could think of only two humantarian interventions that did stop atrocities: Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to destroy the Khymer Rouge, and India's intervention in East Pakistan. I'd also add to that Tanzania's intervention in Uganda to crush Idi Amin's regime. In all cases, the global powers rebuked these countries. In the case of Vietnam, according to Chomsky, the West started funding the Khymer Rouge. Anyway, I think he could have searched a bit harder, and he may overlook Africa, as so many people do. But maybe he left it out due to brevity. You know, a lot of people criticise Chomsky for not covering *everything*. He's only one man, which is a point it repeats constantly. But in his roundabout way, he was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Western powers, which must absolutely be done. And he always says, as he did in the interview, that all states seek power - hence all states commit atrocities and do things that require exposure.

He also said, at one of the lectures I think, that UN intervention in Rwanda wasn't justified. I'd argue it was - and it was justified much earlier. I disagree with him that an intervention wouldn't have improved the situation. But it was Clinton and Madeline Albright who obstructed the UNSC to issue the mandate to stop the genocide.

But I think what annoys people about Chomsky is that he doesn't offer any answers, he only assembles information, reports and critiques. He doesn't theorise. This means that he doesnt make a nice story out of everything - he doesn't filter the noise - great atrocities, he would say, are fought over simple ideas. I think beyond campaigning for real democracy, he wants people to be free to decide their own future. He's for institutions that maximise people's freedom, and against those that reduce it.

If people like him weren't there, the world would be a worse place.

Firespinner wrote:

I just went to one lecture. I left after 45 minutes. The man is spouting OTT anarchist viewpoints and since its what they want to hear, people praise him.
Its like village magazine, just for people who want to be told what they like.

Got and specific examples?

Uh, any casual reading of current American Foreign policy, and writings by policy advisors, make no bones about the fact that the USA is bullying other countries.

And for the record (maybe you were asleep), Chomsky said all states seek power. All states act like America does. He doesn't blame the US at the expense of other states that do terrible things, he simply sees it as his role as an American to criticise the foreign policy of his own country. The thing about America is it *is* the world's supreme power.

I mean, I've read right-wing literature, left-wing literature, official documents, peer reviewed journals, all kinds of things for my international relations studies, and I see nothing in what Chomsky said that was a "gigantic conspiracy" theory.

So, unless you actually have something substantive to say, I'll just have to take it that you're talking through your arse.