What's the general concensus around here on Noam Chomsky?

[rocktop15]

I love the guy myself. Of his many books currently available, I have only read "Hegemony or Survival" and "9/11."

As far as I am concerned, the guy is a genius. He is a true patriot and one of the few people out there to see thru the fog and call a spade a spade.

[JimmyJazz]

I have read Radical Priorities - His explanation for the US

presence in the Vietnam War was fascinating. Scary, but fascinating. I like him a lot. I think he is brilliant.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Ditto. n/t

[katinmn]

2. I admire his work. Have four of his books and heard him speak

Not only is he a genuis, he's a really nice man.

He donated a signed copy of one of his books for a silent auction fundraiser for a little organization I volunteered with, and he answers emails.

He's been talking about America's march toward imperialism for a couple decades. Finally people are starting to hear him.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MatrixEscape]

4. Chomsky is a boon!

Noam can blow away your preconceptions about what a conservative, libertarian, socialist Zionist is.

We need more high-end intellectuals in these times. They lend valdity, credence, and clarification to important political issues.

Chomsky tends to stand out and his unabashed research and views are thought-provoking and transformative, to say the least. His concepts about language, filters, and media propaganda are timely and appropos, considering the media Matrix Americans are trapped in.

For those who are unfamiliar with his work, here is a brief description from a bio, that I think will make you a bit more familar. It is an informed opinion, but it fits:

http://www.utexas.edu/coc/journalism/SOURCE/j363/chomsky.html

It was not until the 1970s when Chomsky began his work on media effects with Edward Herman. Chomsky and Herman began looking at propaganda and its correlation to thought control. "Separating people and isolating people is a technique of control. Television is inherently an isolating device," Chomsky argues (Barsky Ch. 4). Herman and Chomsky created the propaganda model, stating that media is influenced by five filters, all of which are advantageous to the corporate structure. The five filters are: size and ownership of the mass media, advertising and the supportive income, the sources of mass media, flak, and anticommunism as a control mechanism (Herman and Chomsky, 2).

I would classify Chomsky’s approach to media effects and the propaganda model as very skeptical of the corporate and governmental influence on the news we receive. This coincides with his radical beliefs that the "whole" picture is not being presented to us in a totally objective way. As Reese and Shoemaker note in "Mediating the Message," Chomsky and Herman see the flak filter as "originating mostly from the Right" because the complaints are coming from the conservative think tanks that can fund it. His bias against the conservative ideologies influenced him in perhaps laying the "propaganda blame" on that group. Chomsky continually attacks the Right in his propaganda model stating that the propaganda is highly politicized, driving the corporate economy, while leaving human rights (especially in other countries) neglected. His influence coincides with his father’s statement that is noted earlier, to improve and enhance the world. Chomsky believes the media and its filters are contradicting that ideal to enhance the world.

Whether you agree with Chomsky, or strongly oppose him, he certainly presents his case as worthy of consideration.

[kcr]

5. Kinda sloppy, IMO

To be clear, not his lingusitics work. I have no way to judge that. But I think that Chomsky, while haivng some interesting ideas, tends to make conclusions that arent quite supported by the research he has done. He also has a tendancy to jumpt to the worse possiblew conclusions witout realy having proof.

Having said that, he certianly looks at the world in an important fashin, and he has a lot to add to the discussions. He just needs to be checked pretty tightly.

[hfojvt]

6. sorta the same things said on Altercation

in the last month, I think, titled "Noam is an island". I thought "Year 501" was interesting, and depressing. I appreciate him as a critic of the trajectory of Western Civilization.

[InvisibleBallots]

8. Can you give us an example?

Help me out please, can you give me an example of Chomsky being sloppy and making conclusions that are not quite supported by the research? Thanks.

[kcr]

9. Sure

His claims about the Sudanese factory, for one, and his almost apologia level unconcern with Pol Pot. More generall, he suggests a level oc co-operation among dispariate groups that isn't really proved (the media and the government, etc).

[InvisibleBallots]

10. thanks, one point

"his almost apologia level unconcern with Pol Pot"

That's crap - I've heard to repeated over and over again, and it's bullshit. Whatever.

As to the claims of the Sudanese factory, or his claims of cooperation among disparate groups, I don't know. You would think someone would have written a rebuttal to these supposed claims by now, but so far I haven't found any. Do you have a link to criticism of his claims of the Sudanese factory and cooperation among disparate groups?

[kcr]

11. No, its not bullshit

"the rant over my email yesterday was initially due to disagreements with my pro-life position and not the abuse of the list."

I am sick to fucking death of this childish hero worship for some on the left. Chomsky made fucking excuses for Pol Pot. period. End of story. And if you cannot even admit that, then, well, you aren't worth the time to talk to you.

Chomsky on the refugee testimony:
Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.

Chomsky after the nature of the Pol Pot government was clear:
the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors.

[InvisibleBallots]

12. thanks, please provide the reference?

I may have the Chomsky book where he said this - can you give us a reference, so I can check out the context? Thanks in advance.

[struggle4progress]

27. This complaint is most often raised about a book review Chomsky ...

... coauthored with Herman in 1977. The Chomsky-Herman collaboration was always primarily attentive to issues of media coverage, with special reference to double-standards.

Here's a link: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm

Chomsky may not have been right about everything in this 1977 essay, but I don't read this as absolving the Khmer Rouge in any way: I read it as a careful preliminary discussion about how to interpret the books under review, which is important, given the ideological filters through which the reports passed. I feel that the essay is also colored by a moral concern, that our denunciations of others (whose actions we cannot so easily change) may tend to infuse us with a sense of righteousness that prevents us from becoming consciousness of our own culpabilities, and by a view that we in this country have a real obligation to pay attention to the abuses of our own government, and to the suffering that our own government causes in the world, so that we can act effectively against that gross tide, which is enabled by the uncritical thought of so many of our fellow countrymen.

<edit:> I'm under the impression that it is assertions like the following that really rile Chomsky's critics:

"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments ... What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."

[On the Road]

19. If You Can Say That,

then you didn't read the same things I did. Chomsky never denied at all that the Khmer Rouge committed major war crimes.

What Chomsky pointed out was that the sins of the Khmer Rouge were inflated and also based on sloppy research and bad sources. The line that Pol Pot killed 3-6 million of his own people were based on Soviet/North Vietnamese propaganda. That number also included deaths from disease and famine, which were largely caused by the US.

The claim that Pol Pot had a goal of destroying a huge percentage of Cambodians in order to start fresh, so to speak, is unsupported. The claim that he ordered the population into the countryside from Pnohm Pehn in order to destroy them is not true; the cities were virtually out of food stocks and it was a reasonable move to save the population. The characterization that Cambodia was peaceful before the violent Pol Pot inexplicably took over is also not true.

No one is supporting Khmer Rouge. I don't and neither does Chomsky. The fact that the Khmer Rouge was a violent government is no excuse for swallowing propaganda, especially when it has a subversive purpose.

The dominant view of the Khmer Rouge is right-wing spin with the express purpose of negating American crimes in Indochina (and that's pretty much the effect it has had). The assumption was that no one would correct the record because they would be branded as a Pol Pot sympathizer. They were almost correct.

[Zuni]

22. No

He clearly tried to blame all of the suffering on the US or US allies. He is writing hard core apologia here for the KR and is also saying that refugees can't be trusted---what these people went through did not happen. Holocaust Deniers and Neo-Nazis say the same about Auschwitz

He tried to twist the facts to suit his view, as he does in every one of his books.

The disease and famine were not just caused by the US---read Ben kiernan's 'the Pol pot regime'
There is far, far, far better history than chomsky's BS

[Zuni]

21. I am also sick of that---i have read "distortions at a 4th hand"

and it is startling the way he avoids reality.

He is utterly worthless as a historian---he has the conclusion before he reasearches the book

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. Yo've got some nerve!

The West had Po Pot completely in their power, but pursuant to their infinitely hypocritical and totally demonic realpolitik, strange to relate... he was allowed to die a long time later in his *bed*!!!!
None so blind (or forgetful) as those that will not see!

[Zuni]

24. Have you read "distortions at a 4th hand?"

I have and it is Khymer Rouge apologia. It is so blatantly inaccurate, biased and disgusting---it is essentially like Holocaust denial (which Chomsky also has supported, by writing approval for Holocaust Denier Robert Faurrisson's books)
Chomsky claimed he didn't know what Faurisson was writing about---Faurrisson was mainly a pro-Nazi/Holocaust denier. Either Chomsky is stupid or he is a liar
you pick

[Zuni]

23. Find certain events he talks about then check other available sources

I have found that Chomsky's version is usually utterly worthless as history---take any single event he mentions and reasearch it.
He leaves out critical info that doesn't jibe with his pre concieved notions, he writes his opinions as facts, he selectivly quotes, he exaggerates, he will take one incident and write as if it was a general policy etc. etc, etc.

Is there any wonder why hard core historians never use his work as a reference?

[HuckleB]

14. Indeed.

And I haven't found his linguistics work to be all that either. Some of his early work was fine, but nothing out of the ordinary. Since then he seems too focused on celebrity, and, yes, he seems to make conclusions first and find the evidence he needs to support them afterwards. I struggle with that sort of academia, if one can call it that in Chomsky's case.

Yeah, I know this is an unpopular view around here. It's an unpopular view with many of my friends. Sorry. I hope Chomsky fans can forgive me.

[truizm]

7. Brilliant

[TrustingDog]

13. Propaganda and the Public Mind turned everything upside down for me...

in a good way, although I sleep a bit more fitfully now.
It was my 'There really is no Santa Claus' book. :(

[rolleitreks]

15. It's "concensus", not "general concensus". n/t

[rocktop15]

16. noted*

-

[woo me with science]

20. actually, it's "consensus." nt

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petron]

18. Reading "Hegemony or Survival..."

If you like his books, as I do, you should listen to some of his speeches/talks.

Go here for some videos and audios of speeches/talks:

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

or go here and search for "chomsky"

http://www.radio4all.net

or here

http://www.democracynow.com

Despite what some people are saying on this thread about how Chomsky's arguments are
"kinda sloppy", he has incredible insight into the machinations of our government that we as American citizens should be discussing.

Please people read for yourself and don't be talked out of reading Chomsky. And naturally I would encourage people to read any Chomsky critiques as well. No reason not to get the opposing side, right?

[Zuni]

25. If you read Chomsky

I recommend you take anything with a grain of salt. Do your own reasearch into what he says. Don't just take his word for it. Often he leaves out critical facts and editorializes in a way that often seems like he is listing facts.

[Darranar]

26. He makes a large number of excellent points...

and does a very good job of smashing propaganda.

That said, sometimes he makes leaps of logic, and his arguments are rarely flawless, if accurate in essence.

As with pretty much everyone, it is wise to think while reading his books.

[Igel]

28. He's very dangerous to read, whether his linguistics or political

writings. (I'm a linguist, and have only read a little of his political works.)

I feel (not think or believe) the reason he avoids discourse pragmatics is that he abuses the system.

He starts with a set of possibilities, which are then elaborated with numerous embedded presuppositions. At the end, you have a big possibility ... but because of the nature of presuppositions, the reader doesn't realize you've been taken. Presuppositions are propositions that cannot be directly negated. "Do you still beat your wife?" has the presupposition "you beat your wife", and you can't deny that proposition with a 'yes' or 'no'. It's damned hard to challenge presuppositions: because the reader has to assume them to be true in order to process the sentence, unless the reader consciously questions them they get glossed over. Otherwise when they're referred to later, they've already been assumed to be true ...

He frequently hasn't made his case: he's introduced presuppositions without presenting evidence that they are true; then he allows the reader to infer that the proof has been given.

If I were to ask people reading this post that never read Chomsky's linguistics whether or not Chomsky is engaged in the field of discourse pragmatics, most who didn't say "What's discourse pragmatics?" would say 'no.' But it's an assertion I never actually made; it was an embedded presupposition.

[rocktop15]

29. .....Why don't you write this in English?

One of Chomsky's greatest abilities is to take complex matters and write about them in such a way that is easy to understand---you're not very good at this.

In fact, I don't even know what your point is. Have you read Hegemony or Survival? It is a very clear and concise book that details American foreign policy since the mid 1940's up to today and gives great evidence for America being a terrorist state.

[struggle4progress]

30. You don't think the so-called "Chomsky hierarchy" was a genuine ...

... contribution to the theory of syntax?

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Well, now, igil, is it beyond your wit to

cite one or two examples, rebut them, and then see if we find your arguments cogent, or you're a dead-head. Imagine being so unsure of yourself that you expect *him* to justify his assumptions! You people are really priceless!

We all know why, too! Because you know that the honest DUers native to these boards would have no problem accepting Chomsky's assumptions; but would recoil in horror at the right-wing, corporatist twaddle you would try to peddle by way of disparaging their validity.

Don't you realise that we all understand that right-wing politics necessarily depends upon mendacity, because most people are not masochistic or suicidal by nature?

[Zappa]

33. Chomsky

He is a ground-breaking linguist, but Chomsky is an idiot when it come to international economic systems theory. He has no background in most of the subjects he writes about. That would be fine if he was treated as an editorial writer. However, he is more often cited as an expert about things he knows nothing about.

[Dogmudgeon]

34. The scary thing here ...

... is that no criticism of Noam Chomsky is to stand without challenge.

This is endemic to Chomskyites. I consider myself an admirer of both his linguistic and political work, but the man is not the intellectual Son of God. I, too, have thought he has erred here or there, or made an incomplete case for his point, or even missed an obvious point. Overall, I have enjoyed reading him, and his works have been very enlightening, but I never felt that I had to defend his honor.

But that's something I've seen no lack of. Criticize Chomsky, and the million-pound-shithammer falls. And there is no reason for it. People should form their own opinions, and make specific criticisms where they feel they have to, without having their right to do so questioned. Even if they are wrong.

And for leftists to challenge co-partisans they disagree with to academic citation bitchfights raises irony to a new height. Progress has never been made by a show of muscle, privilege, or scholarly superiority. It is easier and more effective to rationally and patiently correct a wrong idea (e.g., that Chomsky is anti-Semitic because he made a verbal gaffe or two in the Faurisson affair) than to draw one's sword and shout, "Die, bourgeoise motherfucker!"

--p!