3 ms·

A communist caring about "his" democracy? That's new. Wasn't he pro-Pol Pot?

• galacticpony2 9y ago
  Not really. He was - as always - exaggerating the ills caused (directly or indirectly) by "western imperialism" while simultaneously dismissing the reports of the atrocities by communist regimes as "propaganda". When the truth came out, his opinion did not need to change. Rather, he would point out that he was right in his position with the "information available at the time".
• crdoconnor 9y ago
  No http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-tru... That whole controversy centers around him pointing out that a book by a guy called Ponchaud which was being used as a pretext to try and go to war was full of errors. It was full of errors.
  • galacticpony2 9y ago
    Ponchaud's book was not full of errors, it was based on accounts that were (at the time) unverifiable and Chomsky went on to question their credibility. For an outline of the points brought forth, you may read this: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html What the article you linked refers to as "full of errors" was in fact a review of the book by Jean Lacouture.