America is not a Democracy - Noam Chomsky (Video: 7 min)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Sorry I'm not sure where he was speaking or exactly when.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kwLxGHN1snE&search=noam%20chomsky

[orleans]

1. is this leading up to "america is a republic"?

i'm just trying to save myself seven minutes of watching a video.

on edit: and i always like to know how a movie ends before i see it

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. No. It's worth a listen. nt.

[orleans]

4. that was good. i'll watch it a second time. n/t

[file83]

3. Great video! A must see!!

[neoblues]

12. Deserves to be Voted Up...

Worthy of everyone's consideration!

[Selatius]

5. Oh no, Chomsky says Dems and Repubs are the same!

NADERITE!

:sarcasm:

To be honest, his criticism of Democratic leaders is far more astute than the blunt-force assertion that Democrats are the same as Republicans. He does not say they are exactly the same, that there are differences. His criticism is that they're far too much the same on several issues, and that is what, in my opinion, has helped drive down voter participation in US elections.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. Chomsky on supporting Sen. Kerry

if I may indulge with this quote from Dr. Chomsky:

link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/chomsky090204.cfm

"There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they¹re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you¹ve got to make them think you¹re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don¹t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they¹re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don¹t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don¹t care if your lives are destroyed. I don¹t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don¹t care, because from my elevated point of view I don¹t see much difference between them." That¹s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don¹t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it¹s a recipe for disaster if you¹re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/chomsky090204.cfm

[Crayson]

6. View from the outside

I'm not an expert on the US politicalsystem.
I'm a Swiss citizen.
We have a lot of different political parties. And we can basically vote about everything. Every change in our constitution, every new law and simply by collecting enough signatures you can force a vote about every topic you choose.

But perception of the US from the outside is that you only have two parties and have to choose between two evils.

The politicians hardly have to groom the voters because most people seem to have decided at birth or inherited whether they are democrat or republican. The two parties seem to take their voter base as granted.

You seem to have very little direct influence on the political system except that you can elect senators and governors?

A huge part of politics if not everything seems to be lobbying by firms. This is all about money, not people. The rich decide or at least influece the decision that much that it is decided in their favor.


Again, as a Swiss citizen who goes to a vote every month or two (be it about a new road, state or federal law or about a huge international treaty) I'm used to take direct influence on the course of action of my nation day by day.

From this point of view I can hardly call the US a democracy.
Certainly you're not a direct democracy, somebody else decides for you, you just get to choose who.

[Selatius]

7. Sadly, I agree with your statement

Our system is less democratic than yours.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. I envy your system...we need to work toward being more like it. nt.

[primative1]

28. Can I come to Switzerland?

Is it cold there? :)

[ProudDad]

42. We actually have the two right-wings

of the business party in charge here.

We don't get to vote on shit!

[man4allcats]

8. I've listened to this video three times now and taken notes.

I have always respected Chomsky, but after listening to this video I'm no longer sure about my regard for him. As I interpret it, he seems to come off as somewhat elitist. I wonder if Harvard hasn't gotten the best of his ego. In this talk, he admits that he doesn't vote regularly and says that the U.S. is a one party country with little difference between Republicans and Democrats. DINOs aside, can anyone seriously agree with that in the face of Bushco?

He then states that the U.S. is a polyarchy governed by the wealthy or responsible class of men (not people mind you but men - sounds pretty sexist to me) rather than a democracy which, he says, it was never intended to be. He then goes on to say that the country was founded on the principle of protecting the minority of the opulent against the majority, presumably the non-privileged and further that the Constitution was designed to insure this dichotomy. Well maybe in his mind, but I doubt the Founding Fathers would agree.

He goes on to talk about the “intellectual” outrage over the stolen 2000 election but states that it was never an issue for the general public. Does he mean to imply that those who didn't get their degrees from Harvard or Yale are too stupid to have grasped what was going on? If not, then the question becomes why was there no outrage of note? According to Chomsky and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, on the eve of the election 75% of the public didn’t think there was an election going on at all. It was just so much PR between candidates, and most people didn’t care which candidate the Supreme Court gave the election to. “In fact,” Chomsky states, “most people voted against their own interests and consciously because they knew it didn’t matter much.” Do you believe this? I don't. I think it is elitist bullshit. I think Republicans were bought off through fear-mongering and religious fundamentalism and Democrats were screwed by Diebold and Kathryn Harris.

Chomsky does state near the end of the video that really relevant issues such as economic affairs were never allowed to come up in the campaign because there is a strong difference of opinion between elite attitudes and "the public" (more elitist crap) and therefore these issues were not allowed to come up in the election. Personally, I don't understand how this explains anything. Why, why I ask, were such issues not allowed to come up if in fact they really were not allowed to? Because elitists didn't want them too? What the hell does that have to do with it? They don't have to like it, and I believe many will agree with me on this point all of which strengthens my view that the U.S. is very much, in principle at least if not currently in practice due to the imbalance of power, a two party system.

For me, Chomsky's one potentially redeeming statement is his last sentence in which he states "You don’t have to accept this." Because I have always respected his insight, I will close hoping that this final statement is reflective of his true nature. I must note; however, that I will be scrutinizing his future missives in considerably more detail than I once did.

[Selatius]

9. A two-party duopoly exists in the US that must be broken

The votes for the Patriot Act and the IWR and the Bush tax cuts are the three lynch-pins of Bush's machinations. Without these three, Bush would not have done as much damage as he has without them as they have given an air of legitimacy to policies that are illegitimate.

Who voted for them? Republicans alone?

We haven't even talked about things such as free trade with little or no protections for workers or the environment or the government's near total lack of action following the promises after 1986 to secure this nation's borders after amnesty was declared. These were problems that predated Bush Co.

Who voted for them? Republicans alone?

[man4allcats]

10. "Who voted for them? Republicans alone?"

Surely not. DINOs exist. Still, I think Chomsky overstates.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. and Chomsky on supporting Sen. Kerry and usually voting Democratic

and if I may indulge with this quote from Dr. Chomsky:

"There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they¹re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you¹ve got to make them think you¹re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don¹t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they¹re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don¹t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don¹t care if your lives are destroyed. I don¹t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don¹t care, because from my elevated point of view I don¹t see much difference between them." That¹s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don¹t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it¹s a recipe for disaster if you¹re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/chomsky090204.cfm

[primative1]

30. You miss the point ...

In their own way Democrats will do the same things.
They just package them differently.
In the end we still get the stick.

[GreenArrow]

21. "a two party duopoly"

I'd go further and suggest a bifurcated monopoly; one corporate party with two wings.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. "minority of the opulent" is a quote from James Madison

Chomsky's view that many of the founding fathers rejected popular democracy is well founded, much of it in the Federalist Papers. I suspect most critical historians across the political spectrum would probably agree with Chomsky on this point of historical analysis. This this is from his bibliography/endnotes from his book, Understanding Power -

(I think his basic point that might sound elitist to some is that America is a very de-politicized society in which genuine popular involvement in informed decision making is minimal. I think that's hard to argue with.)

link:

http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter8.htm

snip"96.96. For James Madison's statements, see Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1787 ("Yates's Minutes"), Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2nd edition, 1836 (reprinted in facsimile 1937). Madison argued (p. 450): In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body.

Similarly, Madison declared ("James Madison: Note to his Speech on the Right of Suffrage," in Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966, Vol. III, p. 452):

An obvious and permanent division of every people is into owners of the Soil, and the other inhabitants. In a certain sense, the Country may be said to belong to the former. . . . Whatever may be the rights of others derived from their birth in the Country, from their interest in the high ways & other parcels left open for common use as well, as in the national Edifices and monuments; from their share in the public defense, and from their concurrent support of the Govt., it would seem unreasonable to extend the right so far as to give them when become the majority, a power of Legislation over the landed property without the consent of the proprietors.

In a June 1787 speech, perhaps influenced by Shays's rebellion -- a 1786-87 armed rebellion by debt-ridden Massachusetts farmers that was suppressed by force -- Madison gave the following warning (Richard Matthews, If Men Were Angels: James Madison and the Heartless Empire of Reason, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995, p. 80):

In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the laws of equal suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this Country, but symptoms of a levelling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give warning of the future danger.

Madison elaborated further on this fear in 1829, commenting (p. 210):

That proportion being without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights, to be safe depositories of power over them.

The most careful scholarly analysis concludes (Jennifer Nedelsky, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism: The Madisonian Framework and its Legacy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990, p. 66):

In 1787 the importance of the rights of persons and the right to participate in the making of the laws were assumptions in the back of Madison's mind. The protection of property was the object he held steadily before him as he worked on the Constitution. This focus cast "the people," the future majority, in the role of a problem to be contained, and tipped the balance among the competing values he sought to implement.

The author notes that the same conception was accepted as a matter of course by almost all of the Framers, James Wilson being "the only one who declared that property was not the object of government" and "gave priority to what was seen by his colleagues as the major threat to property: the political liberty of the people" (p. 96). Chomsky adds that Thomas Jefferson took a similar position, but he had no direct role in these deliberations.

See also, Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787, New York: Norton, 1969, pp. 513-514 ("The Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period," delivering power to a "better sort" of people and excluding "those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power"); Lance Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995, p. 245 (the author, who strongly affirms Madison's dedication to popular rule, nevertheless concurs with Gordon Wood's assessment of the Constitutional design, quoted above).

97. On Madison's original assumptions and his subsequent recognition of their delusional nature, see for example, Jennifer Nedelsky, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism: The Madisonian Framework and its Legacy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990, pp. 42-51; Lance Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995, p. 203; Richard Matthews, If Men Were Angels: James Madison and the Heartless Empire of Reason, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995, pp. 184, 189 n.32; Robert A. Rutland et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 213 (Madison's language about the "enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher," was from a 1787 letter to Thomas Jefferson).

These scholars recount Madison's hope that it would be the "enlightened Statesman" and "benevolent philosopher" who would share in the exercise of power in the political system he designed. Ideally "pure and noble," these "men of intelligence, patriotism, property and independent circumstances" would be a "chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations." They would thus "refine" and "enlarge" the "public views," guarding the public interest against the "mischiefs" of democratic majorities.

Madison soon learned differently, and by 1792 he warned that the Hamiltonian developmental capitalist state would be a government "substituting the motive of private interest in place of public duty," leading to "a real domination of the few under an apparent liberty of the many." As Madison put it in a letter to Jefferson (Nedelsky, pp. 44-45):

y imagination will not attempt to set bounds to the daring depravity of the times. The stock-jobbers will become the pretorian band of the Government, at once its tool and its tyrant; bribed by its largesses and overawing it by its clamours and combinations.

98. For Madison's recommendation that the population should always remain fragmented, see his famous Federalist Paper No. 10, first published in 1788. An excerpt:

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. . . . To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. . . . By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. ."

[calmblueocean]

24. I found this speech pretty ugly and selfish as well.

The difference between the Bush presidency and a hypothetical Gore presidency is vast and meaningful. Tens of thousands of people would still be alive if Gore was president, tens of thousands more would still have their arms and legs and eyes. To say that this is not a meaningful difference is odious. But this is just the most obvious difference, not the only one, or even perhaps the most consequential.

Gore has been an outspoken advocate in favor of the environment since he published 'Earth in the Balance' in 1992, well before this video was taken. He has gone so far as to say we should "make the effort to save the global environment the central organizing principle of our civilization." Given Republican attitudes towards the environment, and the importance of global warming, the loss of species, renewable energy, etc., one wonders if Chomsky even knew who was running for president.

The fact that Chomsky does not vote speaks volumes to me. Chomsky is frustrated because the current political system excludes the kind of world he would like to live in -- a political anarchy with no state at all. If he can't have things the way he wants them, then he essentially has a tantrum, declaring that we don't live in a Democracy, and that there is no difference between the two parties.

I appreciate Chomsky because he often cuts through superficial issues to a deeper level of dialogue about the way the world should be. But just as often, he can be childlike and narcissistic, so inwardly focused on his own pet theoretical criticisms that he completely abandons the struggle to make the world better in reality.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. Chomsky voted for Kerry and usually votes Democratic

"Anyone who says "I don¹t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don¹t care if your lives are destroyed. I don¹t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don¹t care, because from my elevated point of view I don¹t see much difference between them." That¹s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don¹t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it¹s a recipe for disaster if you¹re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/chomsky090204.cfm

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. Chomsky doesn't strike...

...me as the least bit elitist, quite the opposite actually. He didn't elaborate on his non-participation in our election process. My guess is he considers what participation we are allowed as token, not meaningful, and maybe a bit insulting. I interpret his statement that we are really a one party state to mean both parties serve the private interests of corporate America at the expense, rather than on behalf, of the people. I agree with this, however, I see no comparison between the PNAC driven Neocons and their agenda of world domination via military conquest, and the Dems. I don't think he meant to compare them from this standpoint. Obviously, we'd be much better off under the Democratic Party than the ruinous, war mongering Neocons. Unfortunately, the Neocons are thoroughly corrupt and control the electoral process, to include the non-auditable vote collection and counting.

His claim that "the U.S. is a polyarchy governed by the wealthy or responsible class of men," I regard as merely a statement of fact. I don't see the sexism in it. It IS very wealthy white males for the most part. He's certainly not suggesting that this is how it should be, only that it is how the system was originally designed and still functions.

As to Chomsky's comments about the 2000 stolen election. I think he's correct that it wasn't an issue for the general public. He didn't talk about media's role in this, but I hold our corporate owned MSM primarily responsible for the public's lack of knowledge about what actually occurred in Florida in 2000. I don't think he was suggesting the lack of public knowledge was due to stupidity.

His claim that 75% of the people didn't know there was an election going on is a bit of an eye opener for me. I'd like to know specifically how he/they determined this and specifically what populace he's talking about---does he mean Florida state residents only? I think his statement that “most people voted against their own interests and consciously because they knew it didn’t matter much,” needs elaboration. I'd like to hear him clarify it. I can't say I agree with it as it stands, but I don't regard him as an elitist. I certainly agree with you that Kathryn Harris and Diebold were key players in Florida in 2000---I think they stole enough votes to make it close and the SCOTUS did the rest.

I'm not sure I understand your point concerning Chomsky's observation that economic issues of importance to ordinary people are never put forward as campaign issues. It seems like an accurate observation to me. I believe he's suggesting that substantive economic issues, where the interests of the monied elites who run our country and those of ordinary citizens who comprise the masses come into conflict, are simply avoided. He's suggesting that we don't have to accept this and should force the issues we care about to be publicly discussed and acted on. I agree with him on this.

[primative1]

29. Pick all you will ..

... But you KNOW he is 100% correct.

[man4allcats]

41. Well, I know he's a well respected scholar who has earned

that respect because his views are largely on target. Still, I'm not one to subscribe to idol worship. Sometimes even intellectual superstars are wrong, and we must not be afraid to challenge them merely because of their larger than life reputations. I am not a Chomsky expert, and I have learned much from these excellent replies to my original post. Did I to some extent miss the mark in my evaluation? Probably, but I knew beforehand that risk existed. I ran it nevertheless because one can often learn a great deal through interactions with others participating in the dialog. I consider that an acceptable risk if it may or in fact does lead to the furtherance of my own knowledge. Having said that, do I believe as you say that Chomsky (or anyone else for that matter) is 100% correct? Not hardly. Idol worship exchanges dialog for monolog, and monolog is the handmaiden of tyranny. Gee, I like that. It's not bad, and it's my own, too.

[rman]

33. Bush = evidence that Dems are not the similar to Repubs?

Bush is extreme. He is not a typical republican, so he does not qualify as a reference when comparing the Dem party and the Repub party.

Chomsky does present a number of solid arguments for his claim that both parties are virtually identical. The arguments revolve around the parties stances on issues. For instance in the debate about NAFTA it was not about whether or not NAFTA should be created, but about the who, the where and the how much of it.

Compared to actual Leftist positions, the Dem party is at best moderate - in fact it is regularly claimed be certain democrats that indeed the Dem party is not a left-wing party.

The notion that there is a strong difference of opinion between elite attitudes and "the public" is not crap, and it certainly is not elitist to say that there is a big difference. Polls show time and time again that most Americans are in favor of universal (tax-funded, 'nationalized') healthcare - yet is a very long time ago when that was a major campaign issue.

Maybe you think it is elitist to even make a distinction between those who hold a lot of economic and political power (the elites), and those who don't have such power ("the public")? Fact is the difference is very real, as most on DU are well aware.

[neoblues]

11. And We Wonder Why Our Leadership Doesn't Stand Up

We're always wondering why our own Democratic Leadership is always going along with the Repulicans, always seeming to land on the side of B u s i n e s s (though, fortunately, not so f a r over on the scale as Republicans). Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is surely a big part of it. Indeed, the other parts are but mechanisms by which what Chomsky elucidates manages to function (things like campaign finance reform--and that it's obviously just wishful thinking on the part of the impoverished majority (and, let's be honest here too--the "middle" class is "poor" by comparison to the upper class) that we'd ever get our 'leaders' in government to pass any truly effective legislation enabling the common man to participate as equals in our government).

Somehow, though, I don't expect most people to really see the truth of his presentation. We're too driven, too hopeful and want to believe. Then too, the insidious Republican (Republican meaning: less subtly Aristocratic/in support of the wealthy) propaganda designed to hide and deflate discussion of the unspoken class war we've all been facing all our lives (the intensity varies and the common man did make much progress after WWII for a few decades... so it's less apparent... but still present--after all, what did they make progress against?)--anyway, that propaganda/spin is very effective, enough so that it affects even those who think they're aware of it and immune to it. The other reason I don't thing so many will get it is owing just to the fact that not everybody, even here, thinks on such deep or global, 'big picture' levels very easily (I'd bet the majority are able to, but more commonly they're focused on the issues and obvious struggles at hand).

Everyone ought to listen to the video--and several times would be wise (especially with a brief period to think following and between). Remember the sense we get when our candidates are finally selected that somehow we always end up having to pick between leaders that either aren't ideal or aren't as different as we'd want or aren't the truly robust "leaders" that we wish we'd have as choices (and given a nation of 298,919,415 (almost 299 million) people, surely we'd get better than what we're given). Then too, doesn't it seem strange that it's almost foreordained that one of them is destined to win (and in the last couple of elections, that was more true than ever and the mechanisms were more obvious--though "somehow" we couldn't do anything about it). If nothing else, just look at the income levels of the leaders of our government! They are NOT middle class, and actually well beyond upper middle class in nearly every instance. Very wealthy indeed are our President, Vice-President and every last member of the entire Cabinet!

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. Here is the link to Chomsky's own audio/video library:

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

[pnorman]

18. Thanks for that link.

It leads out to many more worthwhile video clips: http://youtube.com/results?related=noam%20chomsky

pnorman

[katinmn]

19. Kicking so I can come back and listen. Thanks.

[sellitman]

20. No thanks! I don't listen to Holocaust deniers.

This man may be very intelligent but he is no one I'd recommend. His credibility is that of one of the Lefts biggest nut cases.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. Chomsky NEVER -Denied the Holocaust.. The ABSOLUTE Opposite

The extremist groups that claim this about Chomsky know perfectly well that Chomsky says the exact opposite of what they are claiming.

Chomsky's position is EXACTLY the same as the ACLU.

Nobody has EVER even accused Chomsky of being a Holocaust denier except from the most absolute ultra-right fringe. The actual accusation by some is that he is excessively tolerant of such deniers. That is not the same.

here is Chomsky in his own words --- just in case facts matter:

Regarding his defense of Robert Faurisson's free speech right. Faurisson is a holocaust denier.

His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. "

another article - Link:

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)

link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"

snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."

________________

And I certainly don't think Chomsky should be the spokesman for the Democratic Party, nor does he want to be. The only Democrat celebrity I have ever come across who quoted Chomsky in a favorable way was Ed Schultz in his book, Straight Talk from the Heartland.

I don't see that the Republican Party leadership has ever been concerned about those who are waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the mainstream of opinion. It certainly does not seem to have hurt them politically in the least. In fact they seem to revel in putting right-wing extremist front and center at every opportunity. They have for years. Does any sane person actually believe that the Republican Party gained dominance because they are such moderates and mainstream centrist?

Chomsky is an iconoclastic intellectual. He says a lot of different things; some agreeable and some not so agreeable, much like Jean Paul Sartre was France. Sartre was a committed Marxist-Leninist, but still was highly respected even within very conservative circles of France specifically because of his iconoclastic contribution. On this side of the Atlantic, Ema Goldman would have made Chomsky sound like a DLC Democrat, yet it did not stop Eleanor Roosevelt from befriending her. A bit earlier than that, Republican President Harding invited Eugene V. Debs to the White House as a special guest-after he had been pardoned by him and released from prison-just because he wanted to meet him. Has American society become so antiseptic and skewered so far to the right that only right-wing extremist are considered credible contributors to public thought?


link:

link: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

Here is the controversial article Chomsky wrote regarding the Khemer Rouge:

Distortions at Fourth Hand
Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman
The Nation, June 6, 1977

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

[sellitman]

27. Chomsky & the Neo Nazis

Chomsky has said that his contact with the neo-Nazis is strictly limited to a defense of their freedom of speech. That is a slick way of saying they are against Zionism but for Israel. I don't buy it for one minute.

Yes....he has said that he disagrees with the most important neo-Nazi article of belief , that Holocaust never happened. But such denials have not prevented him from many and varied political collaboration with the neo-Nazi movement.

He has agreed with the neo Nazis movement on other key points­­ and this has proven essential for the Neo-Nazis especially in France­ from using his scholarly reputation to promote and publicize the neo-Nazi cause.

He has a long history of one sidedness that causes many on the left & right to consider him nothing but a crack pot, abeit a very slick one.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. Chomsky has never had ANY sympathy with the Neo Nazi's

He is hardly a revered figure on the extreme right. In fact his public sympathy and solidarity in France has been completely with the minority Arabic and Muslim population of France - the main focus - in fact almost the only focus of French Neo Nazi agitation. I could not imagine a more antithetical figure than Noam Chomsky to the French Neo Nazis.

link:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

the faurisson affair:

snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"
_________________

He does not even agree that the pro-Israel lobby in America is as strong as many think it is - link:

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9999§ionID=11

"As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC , such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races." "

[rman]

35. And yet again, vague and unsubstantiated accusations.

Typical.
Very typical.

[sellitman]

36. Chomsky's famous quote

The ONLY Chomsky Quote you need to know (but you do need to know it): “the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives.”

Would that I had the power to put the epiteth upon his tomb: "the most useful of all idiots."

[rman]

38. quote out of context

try again.

[rman]

34. bullshit RW lies

[sellitman]

37. More Chomsky quotes and deeds

Noam Chomsky:

said the US deserved 9-11 because of the "extreme terrorism" of US foreign policy

praised Mao's China--during the Cultural Revolution

openly supported Vietcong terrorism and called for the same in the Philippines

supported the Khmer Rouge; denied the mass killings in Cambodia; accused his critics on this issue of lying; falsely claimed the Economist as his source

lied about the 1998 attack on the Bin Laden pharmaceutical factory in Sudan; claimed that it resulted in tens of thousands of deaths; lied, saying that Human Rights Watch was one of his sources


claimed that the Bosnian Muslims were America's "Balkan clients" while opposing all US efforts to deal with Slobodan Milosevic

still denies that Robert Faurisson, anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, is a Nazi

[rman]

39. No need to tell me about Chomsky

You make yet more unsubstantiated accusations, you'll come back with more out-of-context quotes, i'll provide the context, others will chip in. Been there, done that. You don't really want to go there with me.


What I've Learned About US Foreign Policy
http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=1220
The basic message being that the CIA, the military-industrial-complex, the Pentagon, the multinational corporations, the media and the Government of the United States are responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the third world, not to mention the poverty and oppression of millions more. We support, arm, and train dictators and militaries that do these evil actions to their own people. All of this is to insure that we control the natural resources of these countries and their market place, use the people for cheap labor and keep the business of war (which is our biggest business) ongoing.



Overthrow - America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
Democracy Now
Friday, April 21st, 2006

part 1
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/21/132247&mode=thread&tid=25
part 2
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/08/1353206
(video, audio, transcript)

Interview with former New York Times foreign correspondent, Steve Kinzer. Kinzer's new book is titled, "Overthrow: America"s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." In it, he examines how the United States has thwarted independence movements in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Nicaragua; staged covert actions and coups d'etat in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile; and invaded Grenada, Panama and Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. Chomsky strongly condemned the attacks of 9/11 he certainly NEVER supported

the Khmer Rouge. He did support the Vietnamese Independence movement. But he has always condemned attacks on innocent civilians no matter who carries them out. And he did not think Faurisson was personally a Nazi, but he certainly thought his ideas were completely loony. I could find no evidence that he ever supported Mao during the cultural revolution. This is the first time I ever heard that one. Chomsky is not the only one who thought the attacks on the Sudan's main pharmaceutical plant cost thousands of lives - link to article by Jonathan Belke of the Boston Globe: http://www.doublestandards.org/sudan.html

The other attacks listed above are too numerous to answer. I would suggest reading his Archives for yourself to determine what Chomsky did or did not say - Link:

http://www.chomsky.info/

http://www.counterpunch.org/akram0615.html

"The atrocities of September 11th, in which thousands of innocent civilians died, were serious and unparalleled heinous acts of terrorist attacks in the United States. There is no dispute that those responsible for perpetrating this outrageous violence should be brought to justice and punished according to US and international laws."

he wrote a detailed book on the subject / nowhere does he say anything to to condone the attacks:

link on Amazon:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1583224890/qid=1149721995/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1846545-3744063?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
_______________


link to full article:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."

snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"

[durrrty libby]

23. Thanks, will listen later n/t

[rniel]

32. The most shocking thing of all

He actually admits he sometimes has voted for republicans.

Aren't we told by the media that this is the most far left guy on the planet?