Political Book Review, totally OT

[Merryprankster]

I just polished off Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival.

I expected far better from a man who is first, so obviously intelligent and who is also accustomed to the rigors of academic work. Secondly, I expected that such intelligence - not to mention his famed mastery of volumes and volumes of data would lead to a well-reasoned argument for his case--namely that the United States does not act from reasons of security, but from reasons of hegemony--that is to say unquestioned global dominance.

I was not convinced. I was willing to be convinced as I find the history of the United States to be far from perfect, but unfortunately, it fell short on several counts. His arguments are riddled with rhetorical fallacies, assumptions which rest on improper term definitions, treatment of theoretical geopolitical models as reality, vice as tools and failure to address and refute evidence which contradicts many of his points.

In the first instance I offer up the following two tautological examples:

The first is that Noam Chomsky firmly insists that the public is bright enough to do political analysis. After all, he says, they analyze sports, so it's not as if the U.S. public is incapable of mastering a specific body of knowledge and then analyzing it to identify trends and separate fact from fiction. However, one of the common themes of his work is that the U.S. Elite (never fully identified but apparently made up of politcal, media and corporate powers who believe the 'common man' isn't very bright) are consistently duping the public on a full time basis, and we support or ignore their activities because of said misinformation.

Unfortunately, Noam can't have it both ways. However, in order to get around this, he resorts to begging the question: The Elite manipulate the data, but the U.S. public is capable of analyzing available data to determine fact from fiction. However, if you look at the available data and analyze it yourself, but come to a conclusion which matches the conclusions of the Elite, that just proves that you're being manipulated!!! It's a self-fulfilling framework.

This is not the only time that Mr. Chomsky commits this fallacy. He uses it several times throughout the book, usually coupled with what I will call the "implied ad homenim/appeal to authority." In these cases, he begins a sentence with something like "Experts on this issue agree that...." or "Informed individuals note that...." Clearly the implication is that people who don't agree are either NOT experts or NOT well-informed. Tautology strikes again!!!

Chomsky is also carefully defines certain terms in ways that are incomplete, in order to facilitate his viewpoint. He defines terrorism, for instance, as acts of violence designed to alter policy and public opinion. This (conveniently) allows him to argue that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

While I will agree that claiming "terrorism" to justify a politcal end is an unfortunate tactic exploited by several leaders, there IS a commonly accepted distinction between terrorism and freedom fighters. Terrorists intentionally conduct attacks which injure or kill "non-official" targets; ie people who are not affiliated (working for in some genuine capacity) with the government or power they are fighting against. Freedom fighters do not intentionally target these persons and places. Al Qaida is a terrorist organization. The Mujahedeen fighting against Russian occupation in Afghanistan was not. Obviously, this line can be blurry. Field level resistance leaders may conduct attacks against local civilians, etc. However, the definition itself is not as broad as Chomsky would appear to like it to be. But, since it allows him to argue his point, in it goes.

(cont.)

[Merryprankster]

Chomsky clearly views the world in a Rational Actor, Neo-Marxist way. States, which are governed by the Elite are subject more than anything else to the whims of globalized capitalism. Consequently, Governments behave in ways that are rationally linked to the global capitalist agenda. Nationalism has gone the way of the dodo in favor of internationalism, and is, in fact, an absurd, anachronistic idea that most places in the world (save the unenlightened United States and its ill-defined friends) reject outright and do not act from.

The Rational Actor, Neo Marxist model is not a bad one, but it is, at the end of the day a model. Models are only approximate in hard sciences, and much more imprecise in fields involving human decision making. Chomsky conveniently ignores the fact that Rational Actor models can only legitimately apply to governments/international bodies that maintain a beaurocracy or other consensus driven decision making model. Consensus tends to censure the extreme viewpoints in favor of a rational decision driven usually by some perceived group interest (Game theory type modeling). Clearly, consensus is not infallible, but it does mitigate what one would tend to call "irrational" decisions.

Unfortunately (mostly) there are many governments in the world where the decision making process is either overtly or covertly placed in the hands of one or a few individuals with no beaurocratic or other checks on their power. These states are NOT subject to the Rational Model of geopolitics, but are, in fact, the decisions of one or a very small number of people. The whim of the dictator IS that state's international decision and it may not be in the rational best interests of that nation at all--it may not even be rational for him (or her). Some of these individuals only respond to violence and threats--clearly NOT in their best interests. The assumption that states are rational across the board is a dangerous one, and part of being a good analyst is recognizing exceptions to the rule. Chomsky fails to make room for these exceptions--which are a very real part of the geopolitical framework.

The second part of his argument is that the world is gaining an international, vice national flavor, and that decisions made based on nationalism are both viewed, and in reality are, anachronistic. After noting that appeals to patriotism and nationalism are laughable to most the world (in a reference to how U.S. politicians attempt to mobilize the public,) he cites ITALY as his representative example. A quick look at Italy's history will reveal that it didn't exist as a nation until the late 1800's. Even today, Italians tend to identify themselves by the city or region they are from, not as "Italian," per se. Italy has a tradition of regional, vice national identity, so it certainly supports his case. However, it's quite clear that France (which even examines language for to ensure it's "French enough") definitely has a strong national identity. I would argue that the British also have a similarly strong identity, as do Russians (mother Russia anyone?), Germans, etc. In fact, the world over has seen a drastic increase in Nationalist movements. Nationalism is alive and well and clearly influences choices to a far greater degree than Chomsky would like to admit.

The problem with this book, in essence, is not the argument, but the debator. While I am certain that valid arguments could be made about acts of U.S. Hegemony vice U.S. Security, Chomsky, despite his brilliance, treats the subject with an approach I am forced to assume is willfully obtuse; his endnotes and citations are too voluminous to believe otherwise.

[Christopher M]

You're a brave, patient man - presumably one with a large supply of pep pills and gravol.

With that in mind: oh, oh, do Franken next!

Although it's less intuitive, I don't see any compelling reason to trust a linguist's political analysis more than a rock star's. But it may make your world less maddening to hear that the man's impressive academic work was completed almost forty years ago, and the newer stuff ain't as hot.

[rogue]

Chomsky's biggest problem is Noam Chomsky. Good review MP.

[David Jamieson]

:rolleyes:

who gives a dump merry. american politics is boring for the rest of us, why is it that you must persist in posting this junk?

I'd rather here your points about wrestling frankly as opposed to your right leaning rants LOL.

cheers

[Christopher M]

No self-respecting right-leaner would utter the words 'the Neo Marxist model is not a bad one.' *gag* :p

[PaulH]

Noam Choamsky is okay if you don't mind his generous dose of peppered "elitism" and "liberalism" in too many of his "cooked" dishes. Judgment: 2 and 1/2 stars out of 5 on his latest spin novelty.

Regards,
PH

P.S. MP, you have done it again! Dining on political "treats" are no longer tricky with your "informed" opinion! Ha! Ha!

[Merryprankster]

right leaning rants LOL.

LOL!! Yup, you fall into the same trap good old NYerRoman and Laughing Cow did.

You assume I'm a rightist and you assume I'm all for the Bush administration. It's absolutely great. I love when you guys do that. You betray the level of your dogmatism.

[MasterKiller]

who gives a dump merry. american politics is boring for the rest of us, why is it that you must persist in posting this junk? I imagine he posts here because the responses on the MMA boards would be "Huh? When did Choamsky fight Ortiz, again?"

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
:rolleyes:

who gives a dump merry. american politics is boring for the rest of us, why is it that you must persist in posting this junk?

I'd rather here your points about wrestling frankly as opposed to your right leaning rants LOL.

cheers

As you have pointed out countless times on this board. If you don't like the thread, don't friggin' read it.

[fa_jing]

Noam Chomsky went to my high school.

His political writings are a bit far-fetched, but it's good that he is making his point of view known.

[Suntzu]

MP - have you read TRUST US, WE"RE EXPERTS... your statment
U.S. Elite (never fully identified but apparently made up of politcal, media and corporate powers who believe the 'common man' isn't very bright) are consistently duping the public on a full time basis, and we support or ignore their activities because of said misinformation reminded me of it...... i didn't read it... i want to... but i haven't been on my anti-powers-that-be vibe in a while....

[KC Elbows]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Ann Coulter's book on the liberals and McCarthy. I've been told she did quite a bit of research, but I've also been told that she pretty much is a conservative Noam, making something seem to happen by presenting a weak model as fact. I haven't read it because I don't have time, but it's one of those things where most of what you read is either those who agree with her in politics agreeing because she's on their side, or those who don't agree with her politics disagreeing because she's on the other side.

Also, if you followed up Noam with Franken, you'd be justifying Kung Lek's position on you.:D

So there, Christopher M! Muck raker, rake your muck elsewhere!













































[and don't ask me to cite, in MLA format, where specifically you raked muck, or I'll start posting the virtues of moral relativism]

[@PLUGO]

As you have pointed out countless times on this board. If you don't like the thread, don't friggin' read it.

um isn't it a moderator's duty to read the content of threds despite their Like or dislike of the subject matter?

Hell, MP could've been refering to Noam Chomsky the porn star
:eek:

thoughtfull review BTW... might be more appropiate in the media section, but hey, most of us have been on the political thread tredmill before eh?

[Christopher M]

Ok, ok... he should follow it up with Coulter.

*sigh*

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Ok, ok... he should follow it up with Coulter.

*sigh*

It's all good.:D

[PaulH]

This got my attention sometimes ago:

"Coulter's book provides a wealth of information about the anti-Americanism in the Democratic Party, and in her inimitable style -- sarcastic and contemptuous of those who are themselves pretty good at expressing contempt for America's defenders. Her endnotes include a wealth of references for confirming the truth of her accusations of 'treason' against the Democrats. "

Ahem,

There is this quicky review of Ann Coulter's book by Peggy just in case you are tired and impatient from the dismal prospect of another long review. I too would love to hear MP's view on it however.

http://oregonmag.com/PWTreason1103.htm

Regards,
PH

[Merryprankster]

Ah, KL won't be back. He gets his panties in a wad about such things. I make very specific points:

1. The UN is not a legislative body and member states are free to make their own foreign policy decisions.

2. The War in Iraq is probably not all about Oil and Bush's corporate buddies. There are places, like Nigeria, we could have done something in as a "humanitarian" gesture to get our fingers in the pie and helped out several U.S. oil companies at the same time without the need to go to war. Saying it's all about oil is an oversimplification.

3. The current state of what Rohan Gudaratna referred to as "the brown world" is more the legacy of European colonialism than U.S. policy (remember, we've only been a major player since WWII and some of those colonies were hundreds of years old....AND they didn't get independence until the sixties.)

4. The U.S. is frequently "****ed if it does and ****ed if it doesn't," with respect to its use of power and influence.

and all of a sudden, I'm a dyed in the wool, Neo-Con ditto head. Amazing.

As for Al Franken, he's in a completely different category. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the Left. You REALLY can't take anything he says seriously, no matter how passionately he believes in what he says.

Yeah, I'll give Ann Coulter a go.

The problem isn't that Noam brought things up. It's that he failed to really meet the criteria of a serious piece of work. It's the sort of thing any high school debate captain would have picked to shreds. I'm dissappointed in it. It seems that his tactic is to snowball his dissenters with an overabundance of details.

[CrippledAvenger]

Please. If Merry was truly a neo-con, he'd be babbling about Strauss and vehemently denying he ever read anything by Chomsky.

:rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

Ah, KL won't be back. He gets his panties in a wad about such things. I make very specific points:

we'll see about that Mr. smarty pants.


1. The UN is not a legislative body and member states are free to make their own foreign policy decisions.

The UN is there in one aspect to ensure that member states don't infringe on the sovereignity of other member states. So, by multilaterally agreeing as a member of the UN, on a set of international laws more or less gives the UN or -should- give the UN the position of being seen as the majority voice of reason.



2. The War in Iraq is probably not all about Oil and Bush's corporate buddies. There are places, like Nigeria, we could have done something in as a "humanitarian" gesture to get our fingers in the pie and helped out several U.S. oil companies at the same time without the need to go to war. Saying it's all about oil is an oversimplification.

You are right, saying "It's all about oil" is a radical oversimplification. But the tapestry of events and players that lead to the war in Iraq is not exactly what I would call "out on the table". There are places throughout the world where the traditional position of the US is indeed to honestly and realistically help out. No argument there. That does not detract from the situation in and concerning Iraq.

Not to mention the trickle down lack of civil liberties the american common folk are feeling because of it.



3. The current state of what Rohan Gudaratna referred to as "the brown world" is more the legacy of European colonialism than U.S. policy (remember, we've only been a major player since WWII and some of those colonies were hundreds of years old....AND they didn't get independence until the sixties.)

The United states has been involved in the shaping of the map for almost as long as the country has been around. They influence an entire hemisphere and play a major part in entire economic and social systems that are in North, Central and South America. The US has considerable power off North and South America as well.

Rohan Gunaratna, I really haven't read what he has to say. But the matters of British colonialism likely did have a lot to do with the shaping of the arab states in their current arrangement.



4. The U.S. is frequently "****ed if it does and ****ed if it doesn't," with respect to its use of power and influence.

complaining about your detractors doesn't take away from your actions.


and all of a sudden, I'm a dyed in the wool, Neo-Con ditto head. Amazing.

Nope you aren't. And people who protest about the war in Iraq and want the US to be accountable for it's actions in the world are not "unpatriotic", or jealous. They expect an even playing field to emerge. It hasn't and it doesn't look like it's gonna any time soon. So every four years, another guy gets access to "the button". Anyway...I digress.


As for Al Franken, he's in a completely different category. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the Left. You REALLY can't take anything he says seriously, no matter how passionately he believes in what he says.

You do realize that Franken is a comedian and though he knows the ways of the pundit, he isn't actually a "real" pundit at all. Anyway, at least he spent 8 days in Iraq. Prolly had a few turkey dinners with the troops.

Again, I digress :)


Yeah, I'll give Ann Coulter a go.

Man, that's something that can be taken out of context waaaaay to easily. lol... That is all.



The problem isn't that Noam brought things up. It's that he failed to really meet the criteria of a serious piece of work. It's the sort of thing any high school debate captain would have picked to shreds. I'm dissappointed in it. It seems that his tactic is to snowball his dissenters with an overabundance of details.

As high school debate captain, pick apart a couple of sample points of Noam's.
I mean c'mon, at least Noam has "brought things up".

The end.

Cheers < the real end

[Christopher M]

Imagine a world where you must either agree entirely with Coulter or agree entirely with Franken... now realize most people live in that world.

Scary. Scary, scary stuff.

[Merryprankster]

I did. Or did you not read my book review? His points were mostly based on tautology. That renders them invalid. Tautology is an academic and rhetorical no-no. Arguments based on them are appealing because they are self-justifying, but hold no water. When a person makes a claim, it is their responsibility to back it up. Chomsky made claims he failed to support by committing fallacies while doing so. If you choose to ignore that, I cannot force you otherwise (although I would recommend looking up dogmatism under rhetorical fallacies if you do in fact, choose to ignore it.)

Thus ends the High School debate.

Re: points I've previously outlined--these have nothing at all to do with my political affiliation. But since I don't join the chorus of the far left in almost universally condemning the United States, I am labeled a right wing neo con? Please...


Re. Al Franken--you think I live in a box? Of course I'm aware he's a humorist.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Imagine a world where you must either agree entirely with Coulter or agree entirely with Franken...

You mean they're both not right?

[Merryprankster]

KC,

Let's put it this way....

Coulter and Franken are both searching for the correct, fruitlessly, in a field somewhere very far from where it hangs out....

Franken wants to find it and stop people from working at a chip factory somewhere nearby to "preserve this beatiful and rare creature."

Ann Coulter just wants to shoot it so she can stuff it and mount it on the wall.

[David Jamieson]

mp-

I did read your review, and I have to say you didn't debate his points, you pointed at his methods and called them tautological.

Maybe so, but often times, people will use "they" so they can get to the point of their argument. Do you really think it is difficult to argue that the politicos of the G8 and the media barons of same are not G8 elite???

Do you want to name names? Because it's not very difficult to point out that most corporations are helmed by a very small group of people who make decisions that effect a large group of people. It's a given.

Newspapers, radio stations, television stations and nationwide networks are for the most part controlled and run by very small groups of people, let's call them the media power elite.

The entire United states is run through it's governing bodies, with the presidential administration holding the reigns of power for the most part over pretty much everything. In canada we have a prime minister who enjoys a similar status to that of the us president.

checks and balances appeared to have failed every now and then when it comes down to some issues, that people like Noam, take issue with.

I don't think he's any more tautological than Bush is honestly well informed about wmds, saddam's al q connection, and the oil game.:rolleyes:

again, at least noam is in your face. That's his passion and that's his Job to make you think about whether or not you are being lied to.

cheers

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
KC,

Let's put it this way....

Coulter and Franken are both searching for the correct, fruitlessly, in a field somewhere very far from where it hangs out....

Franken wants to find it and stop people from working at a chip factory somewhere nearby to "preserve this beatiful and rare creature."

Ann Coulter just wants to shoot it so she can stuff it and mount it on the wall.

**** your eyes, you have me agreeing with Coulter! Anything to kill the correct.

Oddly enough, on the topic of Ann Coulter and mounting...

I considered reading her book and doing my own review, but I realized that my taste for insane women would only make this task impossible.

SAMPLE TEXT:

Chapter one started fairly well, you know, her talking about politics and getting all riled up, me biding my time and waiting for her to reach critical mass. But she never stopped talking. Soon, I found myself thinking about other crazy women I could be reading, having little fantasies about Sylvia Plath and me alone in the shock treatment chamber on a rainy afternoon, her descending into utter despair, telling me she's gonna end it all, me like "Sure baby, but first, I got needs"...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Do you really think it is difficult to argue that the politicos of the G8 and the media barons of same are not G8 elite???...

...checks and balances appeared to have failed every now and then when it comes down to some issues, that people like Noam, take issue with.

Do you really think Noam is not in the same camp as 'the politicos and media barons of the G8'?


that's his Job to make you think about whether or not you are being lied to.

He's doing a good job then. Whenever I hear Noam's political theories, the thought that I'm being lied to comes to mind rapidly.

[David Jamieson]

that's all fine and good chris, you gotta have something to believe in. Everybody does.

that's life.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Is it just as good to believe in Rumsfield as to believe in Noam?

[David Jamieson]

good, bad, indifferent. It's something.

in some eyes, yes, in other eyes no. this is all about personal choice ultimately when it comes to ideological, philosophical or political belief.

cheers

[Vash]

Anyone else have the urge to nuke every single person in government, including those not so silent partners in certain industries?

The system of governing in the US is fugged. Do I have a better idea? No, not really. I just think that if I were elected dictator of the US, then some good stuff would start happening.

Oh, yeah, we should nuke Bill Mahr, too.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
good, bad, indifferent. It's something.

While I appreciate the spirit of your sentiment here, I can't help but feel it is misplaced. Surely, when decisions dictate the lives and well-being of millions of people, there must be some objective standard for making them?

Personally, if someone were to ask me whether I agree with Franken's opinions on what happened at the UN, or if I agree with Coulter's, I would reply that I'm not content allowing either one of them to dictate my opinions to me - particularly when it's so easy to look up for myself what happened at the UN.

For almost any example, I can supply a response such as this.

The likes of Franken and Coulter, and indeed Chomsky and Rumsfield, are secondary sources - they are offering commentary on objective proceedings which are themselves available. Why not just use the primary sources?

The problem with Chomsky is that it's not, contrary to your assertion, his job to reveal the lies of the establishment. It has been his job to teach and do research on linguistics - this is where his background, ethics, and training are; and he does an excellent job at it. His political musings are 'ego work' - manifestations of how he feels as a believer, and put forth as an easily identifiable stereotype for consumers looking to do their own ego work.

Imagine if someone of the intellectual caliber of Chomsky had obtained a background in economic and political analysis, had made that their job, and had done that as serious analytical work rather than 'ego work' - along with all of the peer-review process that entails. That would be something!

Well, such a thing exists. Most people aren't familiar with such things for the same reason they're not familiar with Chomsky's serious work (on linguistics) - because it's not offered up for quick consumption - it's anti-ego work which is challenging to work through and requires you to destroy identifications rather than construct them. And this is difficult.

[David Jamieson]

Chris-

You are putting people in boxes. Your statement indicates that you think Noam should only be doing the work of linguistics and not taking that work out into the applied field.

ego, anti-ego, whatever. We are not all drone worker bees and we will never all be that. Some of us are content to do as we are told and to march on under the orders of someone else never questioning the geo-political motivations of our adopted masters.

Some of us prefer to see things differently. This will lead to conflicts in points of view. It is neither right or wrong, it just is.

Anybody is as good a choice as anybody for expressing views that are contrary to and critical of the currently seated powers that be and their motivations for the actions they take that effects the lives of millions.

From one gen to the next.

Truth is, the model is the same regardless of what it's called, be it democracy, capitalism, communism, a dictatorship etc etc. There is one at the top and some who answer to that and so on down the line to the average joe just livin their life.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
You are putting people in boxes. Your statement indicates that you think Noam should only be doing the work of linguistics and not taking that work out into the applied field.

Not at all. Some of the most important economic/political work has been done by philosophers. I'm asking that a distinction be made between popular and serious work, not that any given individual may only do one particular thing. As an aside, Chomsky's political work is not an applied version of his linguistic work; it's quite distinct.


It is neither right or wrong, it just is... Anybody is as good a choice as anybody...

I'll reiterate my belief that, particularly in such serious matters as those that concern the lives and well-being of millions, that there must be an objective standard for analysis. Do you disagree?


Truth is, the model is the same regardless of what it's called, be it democracy, capitalism, communism, a dictatorship etc etc. There is one at the top and some who answer to that and so on down the line to the average joe just livin their life.

I don't see how this can be the case. Certainly, we can see how the introduction of the middle class following the liberal revolution his significantly effected power relationships. Do you disagree?

[MonkeySlap Too]

Kung Lek said:
Some of us prefer to see things differently. This will lead to conflicts in points of view. It is neither right or wrong, it just is.

______________

KL - you are horribly wrong. But i guess that is to expected from someone who is a subject of the crown rather than a citizen.

I for one will not stand up and endure the failed idiocy of leftist creeds like communism or national socialism. These beloved forms of government for 'thinkers' like Franken and Chomsky have caused more death and suffering than America ever has. The environment? Devastated in the soviet countries due to secrecy, lack of checks and balances, and the willingness to lie to themselves that true bleivers have. Civil rights? Forget it. If Martin Luther King had shown up in Russia or Cambodia he would have 'disapeeered.'

Making the wrong choice kung lek, can bring back the gulags. Or give us new ones. The hatred I hear in voices of leftists out her in the Bay Area leaves no doubt that in thier minds it would be good to 'cleanse' the world of 'rightests' and 'whites'. Which weird because a lot of them ARE white. The self-hating knows no bounds.

Is the US perfect? No. Are we as free as we think we are? No. But do we have the potential to acheive these things? Sure. Capitalism and Republican democracy have proven to be a flexible, resiliant system that has given more opportunity to thrive, and a consistently better standard of living than any other system in human history. Is it 'fair'? Grow up. Life is not fair.

Guys like Chomsky are typical self-hating nutjobs. The fact that people distrust the right is good. The fact that so many just beleive the idiocy and hatred spewed by the left is disapointing. It is really hard to temper the stupidity on the right when the stupidty on the left is so weak-minded and foolish that you can't trust these guys to tie thier own shoes - they probably think the government should do it for them.

Many people have no desire to live in a bleak gulag archipelago - and choosing the path of Chomsky puts you right back on the road to Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Please note that the left only turned thier backs on these 'great leaders' after they were tossed out on thier own petards.

Chomsky and Franken are all part of the same coin - they want you all worked up over things that often don't even exist, in order to build thier own power base. This happens on both sides of the spectrum, only the right doesn't want to send you to a re-education camp before breakfast.

If you feel that there is injustice, speak up. Fight for it. Of course moneyed interests will always be problematic - but they can be defeated eventually, whereas a monolithic 'peoples state' will just grind you like hamburger for speaking up.

So no, not all ideas are created equal.

MP - you are my hero now. An educated fighter who can hold his own in field of ideas, and gets the fact that critical thinking transcends 'creeds' and the need to follow or beleive. There is hope for us yet.

[Christopher M]

Hey man, not all canucks are socialist. We have a fabulous grass-roots rightist movement up here. :p

[David Jamieson]

KL - you are horribly wrong. But i guess that is to expected from someone who is a subject of the crown rather than a citizen.

You need a candian history lesson or two my friend.


I for one will not stand up and endure the failed idiocy of leftist creeds like communism or national socialism. These beloved forms of government for 'thinkers' like Franken and Chomsky have caused more death and suffering than America ever has. The environment? Devastated in the soviet countries due to secrecy, lack of checks and balances, and the willingness to lie to themselves that true bleivers have. Civil rights? Forget it. If Martin Luther King had shown up in Russia or Cambodia he would have 'disapeeered.'

You "for one" have stated your belief quite strongly here and indicate the side you take in political thought as currently presented.


Making the wrong choice kung lek, can bring back the gulags. Or give us new ones. The hatred I hear in voices of leftists out her in the Bay Area leaves no doubt that in thier minds it would be good to 'cleanse' the world of 'rightests' and 'whites'. Which weird because a lot of them ARE white. The self-hating knows no bounds. The "wrong" choice is that which conflicts with yours?


Is the US perfect? No. Are we as free as we think we are? No. But do we have the potential to acheive these things? Sure. Capitalism and Republican democracy have proven to be a flexible, resiliant system that has given more opportunity to thrive, and a consistently better standard of living than any other system in human history. Is it 'fair'? Grow up. Life is not fair. I never said life was fair.


Guys like Chomsky are typical self-hating nutjobs. The fact that people distrust the right is good. The fact that so many just beleive the idiocy and hatred spewed by the left is disapointing. It is really hard to temper the stupidity on the right when the stupidty on the left is so weak-minded and foolish that you can't trust these guys to tie thier own shoes - they probably think the government should do it for them. Again, this is your opinion and it may or may not be shared by others.


Many people have no desire to live in a bleak gulag archipelago - and choosing the path of Chomsky puts you right back on the road to Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Please note that the left only turned thier backs on these 'great leaders' after they were tossed out on thier own petards. a petard is a hand grenade. Your view of Noam's views is that he is a communist. I disagree. see?


Chomsky and Franken are all part of the same coin - they want you all worked up over things that often don't even exist, in order to build thier own power base. This happens on both sides of the spectrum, only the right doesn't want to send you to a re-education camp before breakfast. don't exist? I disagree. Frum and wolfowitz have pretty much published and put on the table what they believe. It exists buddy.


If you feel that there is injustice, speak up. Fight for it. Of course moneyed interests will always be problematic - but they can be defeated eventually, whereas a monolithic 'peoples state' will just grind you like hamburger for speaking up. People do fight for it. For instance, the bush admins decision to invade Iraq alienated their friends and allies and sparked the greatest and largets worldwide protests ever seen. And they "respectfully disagreed" and went ahead with their agenda. What does that say to you?


So no, not all ideas are created equal. True.


MP - you are my hero now. An educated fighter who can hold his own in field of ideas, and gets the fact that critical thinking transcends 'creeds' and the need to follow or beleive. There is hope for us yet. The church of critical thinking would be great...oh wait, that's the unitarians. lol

Chris- A persons idiocy is only determined by our own revilement of it. Sometimes, there is no way to fight against it and those that hold power will do anything, including killing their detractors to hang onto it. Be they democratic, communist or whatever. It comes down to the agendas and the motivations of the few with power superceding the agendas and views of those who do not hold power. Power in this world is apparently Military might. The Bush admin has failed in teh area of true statesmanship and has shown itself to be like a tantrum filled child in their "go it along" policies. Shutting out the rest of the world from coming to resolutions to the problems that exist. THis is what will bite them (the bushies) in the @ss.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Sometimes, there is no way to fight against it and those that hold power will do anything, including killing their detractors to hang onto it.

I'm not sure I follow your thesis. Are you recommending nihilism?

[MonkeySlap Too]

Just because an opinion is not shared by others, does mean that the others are correct.

You also immediatly assumer that I agree with all og GW's policies. True, I agree with many of them, but a complete right wing guy I am not. Nor should that be a reason to discard the POV.

A healthy lack of trust in your government is a good thing. A lack of critical facilities as often demonstrated in the emotional screeds of the far left does not justify tautological arguments or paralogia. The far right is often capable of these flaws as well, only less often, and often thier goals are not idealist. Idealists have killed millions. Greedy *******s have a smaller body count.

CM - my jab against 'subjects' was in the context of most of my political discusins with Canadians I have met over the years. Before 9/11 it was always ' you Americans are so obsesed with individual liberty' after 9/11 it was 'oh no, you are losing your liberty'. All while they fled down here for competent medical care and toe clippers that didn't cost $10. One thing Canadians do have in spades is: Niceness. Never met a Canadian who wasn't downright kind to strangers.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Kung Lek - not disagreeing with me does not mean you are wrong. But joining the chorus that resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions of our brothers and sisters around the world in the name of 'social justice' is not only wrong, but criminal. There is denying the degradations inflicted upon the populations in 'peoples republics' - no thanks. I'll stand against this vile strain of thought just as I'll stand against any train of thought that marginalizes and the kills it's own citizens.

[David Jamieson]

MStoo-

Your own country, as well as mine and it's governments have participated in the slaughter of thousands of innocents.

How does this make them any different from those that they or you or I point fingers at and say "oooh they are bad because they kill people in their own countries"?

I didn't make any assumptions about you supporting Bush. Anymore than you make assumptions I agree with Noam's views.

It's easy to point at others and say "they are wrong and we are right because we don't do that" However, it is incorrect to think that your government or the governments that came before haven't done those very same things.

The expansionist foreign policies of the US government in the name of "stemming communism" in the west has killed hundreds of thousands of people, innocent civilians. From the central americas, to the natives of your own country, military tactics and economic policies have killed and starved out these people.

Should there be a blind eye to it? Or shall we keep pointing at figures like Mao Stalin and Hitler who are all gone and their governments no longer exist?

Chris- This is why I say the model is the same. And if you look at the fundamental model of power and control, it is all the same. It is the few, governing the many and carrying outr completely unethical and immoral deeds to see to it that their geo-political agendas are met.

It seems quite apparent that those who hold the reigns of power and money would never ever have such a place where people are utterly and totally responsible for their own actions. the laws of the land support "blame".

People in turn like this idea of being able to cast blame so that they themselves don't have to be accountable for their own stupidity.

That's life and no, it isn't fair and there certainly isn't much in the way of real justice.

Just think if the arab world put a standing army on our shores to make sure their interests here were being guarded.

That's all it takes to ponder really when someone wants to ask "what is wrong with the big picture".

Cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
This is why I say the model is the same. And if you look at the fundamental model of power and control, it is all the same. It is the few, governing the many

I still don't see how this is the case. I've brought up the example of the liberal revolution, who, along with the communist revolution, put forth potent critiques and suggested alternatives to the power model you claim here is universal. From the prevalence of the middle class it seems that the liberal alternatives, at least, have been significantly successful. I brought this up before, and it's unclear what your response is. It's also unclear, as I just asked, what you're advocating - indeed, nihilism?

[David Jamieson]

Not advocating Nihilism at all Chris. I find it to be a bit on the defeatist side and frankly, I have hope. :D

You must look through the trees to see the forest in re: the model of governance that is universal regardless of it's name.

Don't cloud it with the details and you'll see it.

The model is this:

The leader / The underlings/ The masses.

Doesn't matter if the system is communist, democratic, monarchical or whatever, it is the same again and again.

cheers

[KC Elbows]

Monkeyslap said:

"The far right is often capable of these flaws as well, only less often, and often thier goals are not idealist. Idealists have killed millions. Greedy *******s have a smaller body count."

That's not a very supportable position. The religious right frequently moves towards goals of idealism, oftentimes irrespective of costs to religious liberty, and I suspect you have not a single statistic to support your assertion that the far right are lamos less than the far left, much less the body count statement, which you would have a hard time asserting while keeping greed out of the equation. For instance, the nazis used idealism, but they also used greed(would there have been aushwitz without the german economy being reborn from the ashes and thus the german people happy? Clearly not). The chinese communists used both, hell, good luck ruling out greed as a major contributor even in things as seemingly cut and dried as the inquisition.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
You must look through the trees to see the forest in re: the model of governance that is universal regardless of it's name.

Can you give a specific criticism of the classical liberal solution to the problem of government you have outlined?

I can supply a critique of the communist solution - the dictatorship of the proletariat is no better than the dictatorship of the capitalist, and no mechanism has been suggested for surpassing the former to result in communism, leaving communism proper to the realm of whimsy.

Far from being theory, this critique can be seen in the failure of communist models to produce the hypothesized communist state.

Conversely, a critique of the classical liberal solution must go a step further, as history has shown us through the success of the middle class and of democratic revolution that this solution at least seems to be working.

[diego]

eh Monkey...you really think commies killed more peeps than the bloody yanks?

i don't know man...all the indians, african slaves etc...i'm thinking they at least equal

maybe if you took every commie nation and compared it to the yanks...

[Merryprankster]

you really think commies killed more peeps than the bloody yanks?

I'm really not interested in a who's worse than who argument, but I offer the Stalinist purges in the USSR, estimated at 30 Million dead in some cases, and Communist China, estimated at 10 Million dead in some cases.

The Indians and African slaves don't even come close to those totals. There are more african americans NOW then were ever enslaved (38 Million in the U.S. now) in the United States or imported. There were never even close to that many Native Americans.

So, yeah. The commies killed more people. What that means to anybody is up to the individual.

Kung Lek,

I find it interesting that you tell me that pointing out the flaws of other nations doesn't justify U.S. actions, yet use precisely the same reasoning re: Chomsky and Bush. Just because Bush is guilty of teleology doesn't excuse Chomsky from resorting to it.

re: the high school debate. There is always an affirmative side and there is always a negative side. It is the affirmative sides job to prove his/her point. The negative side is charged with showing how the affirmative side failed to make the case. Crucial to doing this is pointing out logical inconsistencies where they exist. In some cases it is possible to win a debate merely by showing what a crummy job the other side did - rather like our court system.

Secondly, in my critique, I DID debate the issues I outlined:

1. I outlined other data supporting the existence of Nationalism as a driving, vice dying force, which Chomsky overlooked, either willfully or otherwise.

2. I explained quite clearly why a Rational Actor model fails to account for the behavior of many states - yet again providing alternative information that I think makes a strong case for demonstrating that other factors need consideration.


The leader / The underlings/ The masses.

1: Strawman argument.
2: Typical Neo-Marxist organization of the world. Not ENTIRELY false.....but not entirely true either.

For what it's worth, I picked up Treason (Ann Coulter's latest). It's much more accessable than Chomsky, better written, far funnier, and just as bad (if not worse). Critique coming whenever I feel like it.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Typical Neo-Marxist organization of the world. Not ENTIRELY false.....but not entirely true either.

I think it's typical because it mirrors Marx's own idea of the capitalist dictatorship, which was a criticism of neo-feudalist two-class systems of which it is relatively accurate.

I think the neo-Marxist's error is fairly basic: they misconstrue Marx's use of the term capitalist with what it is used to mean currently, outside of Marxist circles. The confusion in nomenclature causes them to inappropriately stretch the application of Marx's criticism.

This is ironic, because capitalist in common usage refers more properly to the classical liberal tradition which shared Marx's criticism of the two-class system.

Nonetheless, the criticism is not ENTIRELY false because classical liberalism described a progressive evolution rather than the revolutionary history of Marxism. So, a continuing, albeit hopefully waning, influence of the ultimate remnants of neo-feudalist statism is implicit in classical liberal ideology.

A further point of irony is that the neo-Marxists, resulting from their misconstruction of the term capitalist (as well as the confounding of proletarian dictatorship with communism), have come to ally with those waning statist powers in opposition to liberalism. This is ironic because it is an allegiance to who Marx criticized in order to oppose those who agreed with his criticism.

[Merryprankster]

I think it's typical because it mirrors Marx's own idea of the capitalist dictatorship, which was a criticism of neo-feudalist two-class systems of which it is relatively accurate.

TRUE!


I think the neo-Marxist's error is fairly basic: they misconstrue Marx's use of the term capitalist with what it is used to mean currently, outside of Marxist circles. The confusion in nomenclature causes them to inappropriately stretch the application of Marx's criticism.

Again, TRUE! Marx was referring to a rather specific relationship between "those who owned the means of production," and the workers themselves, IMO. Trying to stretch that usually breaks it. Hence my comment earlier about how models aren't perfect.



This is ironic, because capitalist in common usage refers more properly to the classical liberal tradition which shared Marx's criticism of the two-class system.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you clarify? I think you're saying that capitalism as it is used now specifically refers to a socio-economic system which, when healthy and fair (lets face it, abuses happen and that's what laws try to prevent) encourages, rather than discourages, social mobility. Of course, such changes are not overnight. Clearly, this is quite different from the idea of "capitalists and the proletariat," despite how much people would like it to be the same.


Nonetheless, the criticism is not ENTIRELY false because classical liberalism described a progressive evolution rather than the revolutionary history of Marxism.

Right. Also, classical liberalism encompasses a strong element of free will/choice, vice Marx's determinist view of history. I find it very interesting that Marx's ideas still fire people up, since, with the advent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, Determinism as a philosophical model is clearly not one that can describe reality.


So, a continuing, albeit hopefully waning, influence of the ultimate remnants of neo-feudalist statism is implicit in classical liberal ideology.

Mercantilism was the geopolitical version of the neo-feudalist system, hence, my arguments repeatedly on this board re: 3rd world nations. We are certainly experiencing aftershocks of said system!


A further point of irony is that the neo-Marxists, resulting from their misconstruction of the term capitalist (as well as the confounding of proletarian dictatorship with communism), have come to ally with those waning statist powers in opposition to liberalism. This is ironic because it is an allegiance to who Marx criticized in order to oppose those who agreed with his criticism.

True, both in terms of the fact that they are aligning themselves with states AT ALL, vice a worldwide proletariat movement, and certainly even more ironic considering the states they tend to align themselves with generally exhibit the same characteristics that Marx criticized.

Fear not, the revolution will come. :D

[Christopher M]

I'm glad I make some kind of sense. That was admittedly speculative.


Originally posted by Merryprankster
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you clarify?

When I say the classical liberals and communists shared the same criticisms of neo-feudalism/mercantalism, I mean they shared a recognition of the same problems; shared a foundation in criticizing these problems; and shared the position of opposition in the political arena against the classical conservative monarchists.

Though of course they varied greatly in the proposed solutions and associated world-view.


Also, classical liberalism encompasses a strong element of free will/choice, vice Marx's determinist view of history. I find it very interesting that Marx's ideas still fire people up...

Most of the Marxists I have spoken to tend to ignore the more unsavory aspects of this part of his theory. I'm not sure if they're just unfamiliar with it, they reject it, or if they repress it. This is true of the determinism and theory of history which we have mentioned, as well as Marx's authoritarian views on religion and the foundations and permissible scope of science. Not only are these things difficult to rationalize with a modern view of utopia in general; I think they are at fundamental odds with the values idiosyncratic to many of the kinds of people attracted to Marxism. A curious example would be the intractable connection, in some people's minds, between movements like surrealism or psychoanalysis and Marxism, even though they have been banned by communists for having epistemologies contrary to dialectical materialism.

[KC Elbows]

Not directly related to the topic at hand, but placed here in accord with the KFM policy of containment of political topics.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9132