Noam Chomsky on the war in Ukraine

Yes, "Communism", as opposed to socialism, was in theory incompatible with totalitarianism.

“... Arendt’s interpretation of Marxist doctrine itself, which even in its Leninist guise is acknowledged as an obstruction to Stalin’s totalitarian ambitions. In this view,

… the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist. (Arendt,1979: 474)

Arendt’s description of the reactive totalitarian subject establishes a basis for her view that both Marxism and Social Darwinism had to be subjected to ‘drastic oversimplification’ (Stanley 1994: 23) before they could be exploited for totalitarian purposes. Only in totalitarian regimes does ideology effect a total rupture between reality and fiction by transforming reality through the actions of the subjects, who are the carriers of the ‘idea’ as well as the vehicle for its realisation.”
ROSENBERG QUARTERLY, Hannah Arendt’s Theory of Totalitarianism – Part Two, by: Anthony Court.
http://rozenbergquarterly.com/hannah-arendts-theory-of-totalitarianism-part-two/

 

I have read a half dozen of his books, numerous articles, seen a couple of docos, watched him discuss & debate on youtube and twice live. I started out as a fan and now consider him the lowest of the low. Think of it this way, holocaust deniers attempt to cover up a genocide that stopped in 1945. Chomsky attacked people who were trying to expose the genocide in Democratic Kampuchea as it happened. Repeatedly. I'm not sure you can get any lower than that without actually killing people.

He has an unerring ability to take the side of the nastiest dictators in the world while simultanousely convincing his followers he is a good & moral man.

Here's the thing, you don't need to be any great intellect to do what Chomsky does. In fact, the last time I read a Chomsky article I presicted the structure perfectly. Its easy:

1) Start with a short, pro forma statement that the non-Western/non-Jewish nation/organization whose nasty/evil behaviour is being discussed is indeed nasty/evil.

2) Spend paragraphs/pages/chapters/the rest of the video describing how this is: all the fault of the West/the West is really worse/Western nations do terrible things/misrepresenting said examples right up to the point of lying without generally crossing the line if necessary.

3) Possibly end with a brief mention of the actual nastiness/evil being discussed.

4) Rinse & repeat for 60 years with staggering consistency.

 

My problem with Chomsky is his way of describing events:
The US did this, and that and this and that and this and that and the other side is not angel too.
So what do we remember?
The US did this, and that and this and that and this and that, which it true.

Yes, the conflict could be prevented, but it was started by Russia.
If I was robbed at night in a bad NYC neighborhood you can say I could prevented robbery by not walking there at night, I drink, I lie, I am not helping my wife to clean the dishes and I don’t believe in God and the robber is angel too.

 

If WWIII starts we are.

 

It is always hard to know where to start with you because, as is not uncommon, you misunderstood so many different aspects of the circumstance, that your "reply," does not really even apply. But I'll start, with: my "representation of him," came straight from his Encyclopedia Britannica bio, which I linked, so you can take your, "I consider myself an intellectual," arguments to them. IOW, that you, personally, disagree with what Britannica has to say-- as you are not widely known, outside of your own mind, as a lauded intellect-- is a meaningless argument.


Secondly, I never even said that a person could not agree with another person-- that is mo**nic. Yet that is what you allege of me, a number of times.

No fooling, Einstein. That's neither what I said, nor what Canell had said, in the OP, to which I was responding. So I will take your hand, to guide you through this. First, the encyclopedia entry:

Then, what the OP states:

Do you see the difference between that^^-- his willingness beforehand, to accept whatever another person has to say-- and merely concurring, agreeing with that other person? To agree with an idea, does not imply that one has not CONSIDERED IT, for themself. But that is Canell's clear implication, that he should just "trust" Chomsky's opinion, since Noam is so smart.

Lastly, here is what I had said:

So where is your argument with that? You are mistaken, if you read Chomsky's view to mean that we should take another person's opinion directly for our own, based on nothing but a faith in their intellect. YOU would then be the one who was misrepresenting Chomsky.

More of your mistaken readings of the argument, into which you are trying to weigh your opinion:

There is a difference, once more, between "agreeing with," and DEFERRING to, another's opinion. Look it up.

Well you got the nonsensical part right-- it would be, except that's only your misread, not what I'd said, or what Canell had said. Again, seeing the value in another's opinion, implies considering it, for oneself, which then complies with Chomsky's view. Coming up with an opinion, without considering the arguments of others, FYI, is not the only other alternative, to just accepting another person's verdict, uncritically, as presented. Was being able to draw distinctions, something that I'd previously noted, as a weak point, for you? I just recently read someone, who considers himself an intellectual, say that they lean towards the idea that "everyone can understand the basics but not everyone can understand the nuance."


BTW, intellectual, the way a person views something, is called his "perspective," not his, "prospective."

Totally agree; but your statement is a totally non sequitur reply, to my argument. You are conflating the two ideas in the OP's statement: to "listen to," and to "agree to." Without the step of consideration, in between those, it is not really coming to one's own decision, as Chomsky believes all are capable of.


BTW, you'll have to be more specific, in another one of your apparent mistakes, from the top quote: I have no idea, as to what you are alluding, when you say, "your ill thought views of the philosopher."

 

Nah. If anything, all this pathetic Ukraine invasion has proved is that Russia cannot handle NATO

 

Before you became a fat baby-boomer sitting on your nest egg?

 

I'm 28 and the only asset I have is my ute. I wish I was a fat baby-boomer with a nest egg to sit on, yet here we are.

 

Ok, that's different!

 

Just as many socialists are incredibly wealthy and would stand to lose millions if their ideas are implemented, many supporters of free enterprise are not especially well off. Not everyone is guided solely by self-interest, principle matters.

 

Don't complain, you have a great life! Do you know what a nightmare it was driving a car and looking for an address using a paper map? To be a teenager where the only porn you could find was a paper magazine? To find the meaning of the word or to learn a history of some country you had to go to library and to look for a book? To be overseas and the only way to talk to friends at home was to use a pay phone (which cost $1-5/minute) or write a paper letter?
Don't complain, enjoy brave new world!

 

Good post .. Noam is correct as usual .. USA poking the Bear one too many times.

 

Don't sell yourself short. Pol Pot's fanboy is a pseudo-intellectual charlatan.

 

"Most people" can't find FRANCE on a map. Just like "most people" couldn't find Czechoslovakia on a map in 1938

But what is most concerning is that "most people" refuse to learn the lessons from history. Like when the allies gave the Sudetenland to another expansionist dictator. And that turned out to be a mistake.

The lesson should have been that concessions to an expansionist dictator has never turned out well. But "most people" never learn...

 

Yes, "most people" refuse to learn the lessons from history, but the decisions are made by politicians, and it looks that Americans politicians are incapable to learn at all. After ‘defending democracy’ in Vietnam our politicians decided to “spread democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan – with the same results.
I believe we should support Ukraine, but could our politicians prevent the bloodshed? According to Prof John Mearsheimer our politicians are incapable of learning:

 

Ya mon .. proceeded by Indonesia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Serbia and followed by Yeman, Syria, Libya.

Since 911 .. this "defending democracy" Orwellian Doublespeak consisted of turning Iraq, Syria, Libya into Jihadist Vunderland .. replacing Secularism with Strict Sharia Theocracy.

 

What nonsense! We invaded Afghanistan to take them over and "punish" them for 9-11 and Iraq to take their oil. NOT to defend democracy.

We accomplished neither of the above, but those had nothing to do with defending democracy.

I'm talking about REAL History. Not made up crap.

 

What good are pilots against missiles? Just keep arming the Ukrainians. Russia and China were more than happy to arm North Korea and North Vietnam while we were at war with them, and it did not result in nuclear exchange. We have avoided such an outcome for 75 years with one simple rule, the US does not directly fight Russian Troops.

 

IOW, giving military aircraft to the Ukrainians would not deviate from established precedent, but longer range missiles and drones would probably be more useful than the MiG 29s.

 

Well... Britain and France created that mess. "The Treaty of Versailles was the encapsulation of every mean spirited feeling on the allied side" -Jay Winter. Hitler was a reaction to it. Was the Polish corridor worth 65 million deaths? I guess Germany challenging British and French hegemony was to some like Churchill.

History is repeating itself in a way. But now the stakes are even higher. Appeasement is necessary at times. It prevented catastrophe with the Cuban Missile crisis. Right now the West needs to be negotiating, not sending in more weapons to prolong the conflict and up the stakes.

 

I think something to be remembered is that France lost around 30 % of their youth in WW1, 1,3 million people and got a large part of northern france destroyed. And it's counting only the death, it doesn't count the wounded, and what people were not as much aware at that time, the psychological traumatism. The USA, as far as I know, never paid as much in a war on his population, it does not diminish the sacrifice of american soldiers, but I think it's important to think about the consequences when a whole generation is either killed, traumatized and/or wounded, when a large part of the population lost any male relative, all their sons, their fathers or uncles. WW1 have been went way too far so their could a smart end to this, the madness of war have been to deep. A bad end to this war like this couldn't been avoided as the war went further. I'm not pretending that Versailles treaty was a good idea, it was a totally stupid.
I just point that is difficulty avoidable to get stupid things out of a situation when the suffering caused by this situation went too far, it blind any fairness, any intelligence. The only solution is to not go into that rabbit hole of madness, hatred and suffering.
We could compare it to a nuclear incident : what's the best way to avoid the damages of nuclear core melting ? The easy answer isn't letting the nuclear core melting in the first place.

The worrying part is : the horror box had been open with Ukraine, nobody know how to close it.