I was a Noam Chomsky virgin until just today when I read a couple of essays in “Democracy and Miseducation”. Despite the fact that he’s the People’s Intellectual, I still find it all a bit thick to wade through. Am I mistaken, or is he actually implying that America’s real reason for supporting the contras was to prevent real Democracy from taking hold in Nicaragua? And that the US is hell-bent against women and children in developing countries, and that defines many of our international policy decisions? I’m having a hard time both believing that and trying to arrive at a different interpretation of these essays…
Thanks. I read through it but was disappointed at where it left off. I guess it’s up to me to figure out if this guy is a yahoo or not, which I know is Good For Me, just like high-fiber cereals are Good For Me. It’s so much easier to get the brilliant minds to hash it out so I can play voyeur (audeur?..no, liseur?) and discriminate between what information to keep and what to discard. I noticed that you didn’t post on that thread…so, you found it using the search function? A whole new world is opening up to me…guess I should leave the New Thread posting to more experienced Dopers…and do more research.
The problem with the Chomsky I’m encountering (and this is the political Chomsky) is that his ideas are accurate enough to almost blow my mind, and then some wierd sweeping statement comes along that, were it true, would be akin to waking up connected to the Matrix.
There is a Gnome named Chomsky in Baldur’s Gate II.
Yes because democratic free elections in Nicaruaga would have likely resulted in a socialist/communist government, istead of a 100% capitolist one. This is the same reasons we didn’t have free elections in South Vietnam. We weren’t sure ‘our side’ would win.
[QUOTE**
And that the US is hell-bent against women and children in developing countries, and that defines many of our international policy decisions? **[/QUOTE]
I don’t recall ever reading this in any of Chomskys work, but the brutal capitolist policies in many ‘free’ 3rd world nations are often hardest on women and children. Cuts in government spending often take place in the areas of food and medicine and housing, this results in a lower standard of living for the majority of the population. (majority=women&children)
(the following may or my not apply directly to Nicaruaga)
GDP rises and the World Bank holds up the country as a example of successful economic reform. The GDP rises because the government has cut taxes on social spending (cost), and is logging the rain forest (profit), and is setting up a banana plantation (profit).
I don’t want to turn this into another Cuba debate, but compare ‘unfree’ cuba with ‘free’ haiti.
I think most of what Chomsky says is dead on. What you have to remember, last glass, is that he’s analyzing complex systems from a bird’s-eye view.
The best thing about a complex system is that individual and group motive often don’t amount to jack shit. What matters is outcome. Well, that’s too harsh. What I mean is that two people can lok at the same situation, and draw two completely different analyses, and neither has to be wrong.
Why was East Timor virtually ignored while Cambodia was the cause celebre? Chomsky gives his interpretation, but had you asked the editors of the Times, you would’ve heard different.
Chomsky is a wonderful mind.
jb
I think most of what Chomsky says is dead on. What you have to remember, last glass, is that he’s analyzing complex systems from a bird’s-eye view.
The best thing about a complex system is that individual and group motive often don’t amount to jack shit. What matters is outcome. Well, that’s too harsh. What I mean is that two people can lok at the same situation, and draw two completely different analyses, and neither has to be wrong.
Why was East Timor virtually ignored while Cambodia was the cause celebre? Chomsky gives his interpretation, but had you asked the editors of the Times, you would’ve heard different.
Chomsky is a wonderful mind.
jb
p.s.- however, sometimes there’s comlete overlap betwwen analyses- see the latin american situation
okay, that one is my fault. sorry.
jb
I’m also a Chomsky fan. Personally, I might find a little shit here and there on him, but not as much as I find all over the everyday papers and politicians that we normally accept as mainstream political thought.
His view on woman and children has always been that human rights is irrelevant in considering US (and others) foreign policy. We neither particularly support them or want to crush them, except as it aligns with our own interests.
Coincidentally, I grew up about 1/4 mile from the Chomsky’s. (ah, dear old Lexington MA!) Never knew him, but was friends with many of the neighbors. They said that there was a “phone van” outside his house during the entire Nixon administration.
And I hate his kid. Howard f’in Chomsky. No matter what you did in school, no matter how tests you aced or A+'s, there was always some damn story about Howard Chomsky and the only A+++ ever given out, or how he scored a 1700 on the SAT… much as I admire the father, if I ever get the kid alone, there’s going to be trouble! 
“His view on woman and children has always been that human rights is irrelevant in considering US (and others) foreign policy. We neither particularly support them or want to crush them, except as it aligns with our own interests.” -Muttrox
Absolutely! Try not to chuckle to heartily at my naivete, but somehow I’ve managed to get along this far without if having dawned on me that, DUH!, US foreign policy/intervention is NOT REALLY ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS! Forgive me, I have many veterans in my family…
He makes some crazily sweeping statements in re that the dysfunctional American family-model is spreading into developing countries due to economic pressure (‘we want to be rich too’) and that is another facet of our anti-child political effect on the world. I’ve read enough history to wonder just how pro-child the “developing world” has been…
It’s sorta silly for me to keep talking about this one essay when I’m the only one who’s read it…
You could go here and ask the man himself. It costs a couple of bucks.
“Become a Sustainer: Get ZNet Commentaries daily, access Sustainer Forums with Chomsky, Zinn, other commentary writers. Check Commentators, Zine, ZEO, Commentaries and Posts.”
or here to read more for free
My mudda-in-law actually thought he was a right-wing nutcase, and refused to have anything to do with him or with his linguistic theories because of that. So I gave her an article of his to read, and she was much comforted because she realized he was actually a highly intelligent left-wing nutcase, just like her.
But she has a short memory, so she may have gone back to thinking he’s a rightie again.
I know this is only tangentially related to the OP, but forgive me, I had to vent.