While I generally like to throw the first rock and then leave town while the riot rages, I'll jump back in here with a few comments.

Felix:

In one of your comments you state: "Chomsky is not like Marx, in other words: he has no prescriptions for a new form of better government. He just thinks that the US government is a lot worse than most of us give it credit for." Neither of these statements is true. Chomsky at least claims to be an anarcho-syndicalist (although it's hard to take any statements by someone so reckless with the truth seriously), and I don't believe you can dig up a single person whose opinion of the US government is more negative than (or as negative as) that of Chomsky.

You also describe him as "inherently mistrustful of all national leaders, the more powerful they are the more so" which consorts very oddly with his support for left wing social and income redistribution programs, both of which are based on coercive state action. He is resolutely a man of the Left and identifies himself as such. His distance from Marx and Rousseau is not nearly as great, in short, as you would lead our readers to believe.

Also, his unremittingly negative portrayal of American aims, often to foreign audiences, is not in itself a politically neutral act--although I have never heard him take any of the responsibility he so eagerly dishes out to others for the foreseeable consequences (or, as he likes to term them, "expectations") of his own rhetoric.

Moreover, you seem to be working very hard to gloss over Mr. Chomsky's obvious dereliction of duty to his students: "Students don't take his classes in order to be able to engage in a fruitful dialectic between themselves and the Master; they take his classes because they want to take Noam Chomsky's classes. They're walking in with their eyes open...". (His derelictions, at least as outlined in the New Yorker piece, go beyond steamrolling undergraduates; check out the anecdote in which he abuses his position as the leader of a tutorial by refusing to admit that bee dances constitute a form of language even though his graduate students have assembled a compelling argument that they do; he simply plays dictator and tells them their case isn't strong enough to convince Noam Chomsky, the judge and jury of all intellectual disputes.) Why are you so forgiving toward Chomsky and so harsh in your assessment of the U.S. Marine? After all, the young Marine is in a situation that calls for infinitely more slack as regards offhand utterances (even if made to a reporter) than is the comfortable MIT professor in his lecture hall or his tutorial.

Finally, I must ask: why are you so eager to embrace Chomsky, whom you admit you have very little time for? The only excuse you offer is that "right now -- right now, with a war going on -- a little bit of counterbalance to the actions of the warmongers is not such a bad thing." Gee, Felix, I don't know, but that sounds very similar to a lot of "fellow traveler" arguments for Stalin in the 30s and the 40s.

Mr. Pardoe:

I described Chomsky's comment: “Well, let’s pick a worse monster than Saddam Hussein,”Chomsky said. “Suppose we could get Saddam Hussein to conquer North Korea. Would you be in favor of it?” as a dirty trick. I stand by that comment. Chomsky's remark is a remarkably poor counteranalogy to the World War II alliance analogy with Stalin, which the student had just used to illustrate a straightforward point: that what counts is getting rid of evil dictators, not the moral purity of their executioners. Chomsky's remark only succeeds in muddying the waters rather than countering the student's previous argument. The current problem with North Korea is that its regime possesses nuclear weapons and the current problem with Saddam Hussein is his known determination to get some. Having Saddam invade North Korea--which would result in him obtaining nuclear weapons for his own use--doesn't make any sense as a practical solution to the current problem. In addition, it's also wildly impractical. As a result, the student has to stop and try to figure out just what the hell Chomsky is getting at, when in point of fact Chomsky isn't getting at anything other than the fact he's a better debater (albeit a seriously irresponsible one) than his student and wants to throw the young kid off his balance. But hey, when your ego is as out of control as Chomsky's obviously is--and apparently has been for decades--it's hard to stop and think about niceties of intellectual integrity.

By the way, quoting Wittgenstein as an authority doesn't constitute a logical argument against solipsism; his statement that language is always a function of relationships between persons assumes (without proving) the existence of multiple persons.

Susan:

I agree with you, Chomsky's remark about the U.S. supporting Fascist armies is upsetting (as it was of course intended to be.) I've done a fair amount of reading about the Second World War and I've never heard of this, although that proves nothing. I'm trying to track it down. If I find something out I'll let you know. Nonetheless, Chomsky's overall point is idiotic, even if this detail is true (which I doubt): if the U.S. was halfhearted in its desire to knock off Hitler, it could easily have withheld crucial Lend-Lease supplies. The Soviet Union could very likely not have prevailed against Hitler without them, especially trucks and other logistical supplies. The restrictions that horse-drawn supply lines would have placed on Soviet armies would very likely have resulted in a negotiated peace between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Moreover, if Stalin had thought he could take Germany down without U.S. aid, he certainly would have done so, giving him a much improved postwar position as tyrant of all Europe. And, lastly, after the U.S. invasion at Normandy, the bulk of Germany's best troops and military supplies was devoted to the Western (American) front, not the Soviet one. In short, Chomsky is just pulling a disturbing and obscure "fact" into the argument in order to further confuse his student.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on April 4, 2003 06:11 PM

Chomsky simply can't be trusted not to play fast and loose with the historical facts, Like the good debater he is, he rarely tells an out-and-out falsehood, but he twists and turns everything beyond recognition. Brad Delong has a great dissection of the process here.

Posted by: jimbo on April 4, 2003 07:57 PM

Friedrich

Firstly, complements on a nicely varied blog (if that's what it is). Good stuff on Art, my favourite artist is Jeff Koons. Let me know whether or not there's somewhere I can debate that!

I can't remember now how I got here, but the only reason I posted in the first place was that I took exception to your calling Noam Chomsky an asshole.

This is quite possibly because I regard myself as being similarly assholish (excuse lack of Websters reference to this word) in challenging preconception, which is what I felt he was trying to do. Also, my ego is similarly out of control.

The Wittgenstein quotes were a result of Googleing on a phrase directly cut from Ian's post. I was trying to demonstrate that I don't believe in an argument that can't be countered by reason, as opposed to backing away. How many posters to this site are actaully members of a political party? I am. (see, I told you I was an asshole).

I'd like to throw this link http://cleibovi.shawbiz.ca/intrbenn.html into the debate, it's not a direct confirmation of Susan's concerns but certainly makes a good jumping off point. In all honesty even I was suprised by the statement, and being as yourself an avid student of WWII I'd never heard of it either. In all fairness though it has the same validity as the original anecdote about Chomsky as no direct source is quoted. If I'm wrong in that, then sorry.

Lastly, I wish I'd never said that whole 12 year old thing, it was just the sort of thing a 12 year old would say (I'd had a couple of drinks at the time)

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 4, 2003 08:38 PM

Apropos of the "armies established by Hitler", from the link I posted earlier:

"And then there were the passages that I could not take to be anything other than casual lies:

That (doomed) postwar partisans trying to fight guerrilla wars against Soviet rule in Ukraine, Belorus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere were "armies that had been established by Hitler." (Instead they were by and large people--a good chunk of them fascists and anti-semites-- who wanted to be ruled by neither Hitler nor Stalin. Nationalist partisans fought the Nazis when they occupied eastern Europe, and fought the Soviets when they moved in.)"

Posted by: jimbo on April 4, 2003 10:19 PM

Dear Mr. Pardoe:

Glad to have you aboard here at 2blowhards. We welcome all points of view (even Felix's, which shows we're really Nobel Peace Prize winning material). Of course we appreciate a certain level of civility, but I think we've been in the situation of having had a few drinks from time to time. If you ever come to Los Angeles, I'll buy you one myself. If you want to contribute a discussion of Jeff Koons, we'd welcome that too.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on April 5, 2003 12:11 AM

ok your points are well taken...the sad truth is that Professor Chomsky is an asshole, but that does not negate the atmosphere he is generating. his basic premise in politics is not "look at me",but look for yourselves. read deterring democracy just once and you should get the gis.

Posted by: xropesx on April 5, 2003 04:38 AM

ok your points are well taken...the sad truth is that Professor Chomsky is an asshole, but that does not negate the atmosphere he is generating. his basic premise in politics is not "look at me",but look for yourselves. read deterring democracy just once and you should get the gist.

Posted by: xropesx on April 5, 2003 04:38 AM

"his basic premise in politics is not 'look at me',but look for yourselves."

Personally, I think DeLong summarizes Chomsky's writing best (quoting from the piece jimbo linked to):

" What I object to is that Chomsky tears up the trail markers that might lead to conclusions different from his. He makes it next to impossible for people unversed in the issues to understand what the live and much-debated points of contention might be....Chomsky ruthlessly suppresses half the story of the Cold War--the story of the other side of the Iron Curtain."

Chomsky is to political science as Erich 'Chariots of the Gods?' von Daniken was to archaeology.

Posted by: David Fleck on April 7, 2003 10:05 PM

I have read this very entertaining, nay, spirited discussion as another who has rather tended not to want to find out a lot about Noam Chomsky. I have a linguistics prof friend who admires him professionally, but admits he is difficult to excuse otherwise.

Turning to the relative morality question, all I can say of the motives of dictators and oppressors is:

Would you rather be eaten by a lion or a tiger?

Posted by: David F on April 8, 2003 03:08 PM

Definitely a Tiger, they're much cooler, with the stripes and everthing.

I didn't post to defend Chomsky, I've only read one thing he's written, it was in the G2 section of the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, and to be honest I don't remeber what he said in it. As we know from previous posts, the guy has a reptation, and it would appear that's all he's got left. On the subject of his political (capital or lower case P) views, I can't comment.

And I think that F & M weren't actually that bothered about his views either,it was more his manner. This is dicussed in earlier posts. The problem I had was with the supporting posts to Freidrich's comment, and with the comment in the original post the he was 'confusing' the student in question. If that line of argument confused me, I'd have transfered to Phys Ed (and failed I might add).

(on Marx)
Just because you are a bad person doesn't mean you can't have good ideas, and that they aren't valid.

I personally look forward to the Socialist Utopia which I find enevitable for mankind, especially given the advent of nanotechnology. And if it's driven by the model that Marx envisioned, then so be it. It's pretty much the only one we have given that the rest of society has only concentrated on the politics of aquisition.

Surely all posters to this thread of discourse would agree that if resources were unlimited then all inhibitants of the planet should be benefit equally.

That Communism (big C this time).

Michael, Freidrich, please let me know if I'm wrong about your moral fibre.

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 8, 2003 08:24 PM

Mr. Pardoe:

It would be nice for the world if nanotechnology were the solution to all our problems, but I very much doubt that it will be, if only because the "infinite promise" of nanotechnology foreseen in books like "The Engines of Creation" would also require infinite amounts of energy, which I'm not aware of possessing.

I'm not as sanguine as you on the matter of jerks having ideas that make the world a happy, healthy, warm and fuzzy place. If a jerk had such wonderful thoughts in him, why would he be such a jerk? Marx offers a perfect example in the symmetry between his personal behavior (deeply immature, irresponsible and blaming of others), his political behavior (bullying and power-mad), his writings (lacking in intellectual integrity and largely a series of rationalizations for points he had already arrived at for emotional reasons) and the movement he set into motion, which was enormously destructive and corrupt. Sorry, but as I've long remarked: enlightenment flows from the individual to society, not vice versa: if you want a better society, get yourself better men.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on April 9, 2003 11:39 PM

I'm sorry, Jon, but the typo in "surely all inhibitants of the planet would benefit equally" is utterly delicious when applied to Chomsky as he is portrayed here.

Posted by: David F on April 10, 2003 02:41 PM

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Posted by: Jon Pardoe on April 10, 2003 06:35 PM

I think this is a clear example of how Chomsky tells bald-faced lies, actually;

"...First of all, you have to ask yourself whether the best way of getting rid of Hitler was to kill tens of millions of Russians. Maybe a better way was not supporting him in the first place, as Britain and the United States did. O.K.?"

..and...

"....Well we’ve learned from the Russian archives that Britain and the U.S. then began supporting armies established by Hitler to hold back the Russian advance. Tens of thousands of Russian Troops were killed. Suppose you’re sitting in Auschwitz. Do you want the Russian troops to be held back?...”

Completely omitted from this account is the plain fact that Russia and Germany were formally allies at the start of WW2 and their joint invasion and partition of Poland in September 1939 is what prompted the allied declaration of war against Germany.

So, the claim: "Maybe a better way was not supporting him in the first place, as Britain and the United States did." is a blatant lie calculated to disguise this.

Stalin didn't enter the war until Russia itself was invaded by Germany in 1941 - and was Stalin completely unprepared for it because he thought they were allied.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in "The Gulag Archipelago" along with countless other historians amply demonstrate that it was Stalin's un-preparedness and political ineptitude which led to Russia's appalling casualties.

As for the west holding Stalin back from defeating Germany, that's a complete lie, too.

Also, the alliance between Stalin and Hitler almost certainly convinced Mussolini that the allies were doomed -causing him to join the axis - and probably prompted the Japanese invasions on French, English and (fatefully) American possessions in the Far East.

You'll note also the Battle of Britain plays no role in Chomsky's account.

And as Anthony Beevor shows in "Berlin: The Downfall 1945", the western allies by agreement with Stalin stayed west of the Elbe River during the conquest of Germany so that Stalin's forces could enter Berlin first.

My understanding is the Russian general staff were critical of the breakneck pace they were expected to keep up in the advance toward Berlin, and resented being played off against each other simply so Stalin could get to Berlin first.

It has also been reported that Stalin ordered Yugoslavian partisans to be ready to join forces with their right-wing pro-Nazi compatriots to resist American or British forces should they attempt to land there from the Adriatic.

So much for the Russian archives claims "that Britain and the U.S. then began supporting armies established by Hitler to hold back the Russian advance...."

Nobody should understate the sacrifices made by Russian soldiers in defeating Hitler - but to imply this was the result of some noble endeavour organised by Stalin is naive at best, and more likely a calculated attempt to besmirch the sacrifices made by hundreds of thousands of French, British, Dutch, Norwegian, Australian, New Zealand, Indian, and many other allies.

Chomksy disgusts me.

Posted by: Chris Parsons on June 22, 2003 07:38 PM

More lame Chomsky bashing, but with no basis. Who even knows if the New Yorker piece has an accurate representation of the student riot as it was presented. Chomsky seemed pretty calm in the exchange. I didn't notice any grumble from him. The Student was asking dumb questions and Chomsky was answering. The reason Chomsky broke in, was because he had to make context of the ideas first. And just breaking in on your teacher is rude as well. Sure, ask a question, but don't go off, asking nit picky little questions, trying to stop Chomsky from an adequit answer.

I am sure it was taken out of context. I have seen enough Chomsky lectures to know, he is pretty good with questions. But, as anyone, dumb questions become a waste of time.

He is lucky it wasn't writer, Harlan Ellison answering questions. Then, the young lad would have had a fist in his nose.

Posted by: FrankChurch on June 14, 2004 05:53 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?