3 ms·

Yes, I'm sure Chomsky would say Pol Pot's genocide was overblown and Pinochet's was undercounted, because he's no better than those he rails against.

vkou 9y ago
We don't need to speculate, let's see what Chomsky himself has to say on the subject of communist regimes. > "Would you describe the authoritarian result of the Bolshevik's actions as an honest mistake, a "historical accident" maybe-or was it just the natural outgrowth of the Leninist Worldview: the idea that only a few people are smart and knowledgeable enough to be the leaders, and they should run the show?" > Chomsky: Yeah, in my opinion the heart of the problem is Marxism-Leninism itself-the very idea that a "vanguard party" can, or has any right to, or has any capacity to lead the stupid masses towards some future they're too dumb to understand for themselves. I think what it's going to lead them towards is "I rule you with a whip." Institutions of domination have a nice way of reproducing themselves-I think that's kind of like an obvious sociological truism. [1] Yep, we definitely found the holodomor apologist, there. Edit: It's entirely possible that he spent plenty of time and words on whitewashing crimes against humanity. His views have changed since then. [1] Undestanding power, p226.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  >Yep, we definitely found the holodomor apologist, there. You're dodging the question: no one mentioned the Holodomor. The parent mentioned Pol Pot for a reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
  - nate_meurer 9y ago
    But... from the article you just cited: > In 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."

vkou 9y ago

We don't need to speculate, let's see what Chomsky himself has to say on the subject of communist regimes. > "Would you describe the authoritarian result of the Bolshevik's actions as an honest mistake, a "historical accident" maybe-or was it just the natural outgrowth of the Leninist Worldview: the idea that only a few people are smart and knowledgeable enough to be the leaders, and they should run the show?" > Chomsky: Yeah, in my opinion the heart of the problem is Marxism-Leninism itself-the very idea that a "vanguard party" can, or has any right to, or has any capacity to lead the stupid masses towards some future they're too dumb to understand for themselves. I think what it's going to lead them towards is "I rule you with a whip." Institutions of domination have a nice way of reproducing themselves-I think that's kind of like an obvious sociological truism. [1] Yep, we definitely found the holodomor apologist, there. Edit: It's entirely possible that he spent plenty of time and words on whitewashing crimes against humanity. His views have changed since then. [1] Undestanding power, p226.

Sangermaine 9y ago
>Yep, we definitely found the holodomor apologist, there. You're dodging the question: no one mentioned the Holodomor. The parent mentioned Pol Pot for a reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
- nate_meurer 9y ago
  But... from the article you just cited: > In 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."