4 ms·

I've read most of his books and pretty much bought into a lot of his analysis around "manufacturing consent", corporate power, etc, 35 years ago. I still think

by downut 2y ago

I've read most of his books and pretty much bought into a lot of his analysis around "manufacturing consent", corporate power, etc, 35 years ago. I still think it's largely correct . However, I also waded into the Khmer Rouge business and his words are uncomfortably close to justifying Pol Pot. Complex as that situation was there's really not any excuse for what the Khmer Rouge did. You can also read his actual words on Ukraine/Russia (easy to find) and see the same tendency there. At the same time, his analysis on the US and ME wars is more accurate, IMHO. This seems to be a pit some otherwise excellent minds fall into: one side bad implies opposing sides are somehow good.

AndyNemmity 2y ago
That's not true. "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 and so on and so forth." - Noam Chomsky
- downut 2y ago
  I very carefully read through this issue years ago when Christopher Hitchens came to his aid. Yeah, that Christopher Hitchens, the much later Iraq War II fanatic. I'm not going to repeat the exercise but at the time it was a teaching moment for me, that anybody can get things wrong. I would not be surprised that he walked back his initial strongly held stance, good for him. The Ukraine/Russia stuff though is just ridiculous, but he's old. I know (former) world class scientists who are old, and also sadly ridiculous. Terrifying when you yourself are getting old.
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    He didn't walk back anything, it's incorrect. The Ukraine and Russia discussion is as boring, and consistent as Chomsky has always been.
feedforward 2y ago
When the US invaded Cambodia in 1970, Prince Sihanouk was ousted and Lon Nol took charge. Sihanouk then allied with the independent Cambodian communists, and after a war in which the US bombed Cambodia more than Europe was bombed in WWII, the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists took over in 1975. In 1979 the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and took over much of the country with the help of Vietnamese aligned communists. The US then began arming the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists not aligned with Vietnam. It also fought for their seat at the UN. So the US began arming and supporting Pol Pot in 1979, as did China. This was covered to one extent or another in the New York Times, Nightline etc. Don't really get people tut tutting Chomsky being a Vietnam and Cambodia dove when the US was arming Pol Pot starting in 1979.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > when the US was arming Pol Pot starting in 1979. There is no concrete evidence the US armed the Khmer Rouge. At best, there is some evidence that some of the non-lethal aid provided to rival groups might have made it to the Khmer Rouge, but that's a far cry from arming them.
  - feedforward 2y ago
    When Sihanouk and the communists are in alliance in 1975, and the head of state is Sihanouk - everything is blamed on the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that means. When the US begins arming the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists in 1979, then all the arms are going to "rival groups" in the Sihanouk/communist coalition. It's ridiculous.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Even if you can't tell the KPNLF from the Khmer Rouge, the US didn't arm the KPNLF either. It provided non-lethal aid.
      - feedforward 2y ago
        The KPNLF were in a coalition government from 1982 on with Sihanouk and the communists, whom you call the "Khmer Rouge". In fact the coalition with the communists happened as soon as the US began funding them - it was probably ordered by the US. Any how, the US fairly openly armed what you call the Khmer Rouge, I guess a sliver of plausible deniability is enough for the minority of people like you who want to deny it. Nightline even did a whole segment on it.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
> his words are uncomfortably close to justifying Pol Pot. Mind sharing what those words were or even your interpretation of them? Fwiw, I don't think any human being is right 100% of the time either. Doesn't mean we can't learn from anyone, warts and all

by downut 2y ago

AndyNemmity 2y ago

That's not true. "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 and so on and so forth." - Noam Chomsky

downut 2y ago
I very carefully read through this issue years ago when Christopher Hitchens came to his aid. Yeah, that Christopher Hitchens, the much later Iraq War II fanatic. I'm not going to repeat the exercise but at the time it was a teaching moment for me, that anybody can get things wrong. I would not be surprised that he walked back his initial strongly held stance, good for him. The Ukraine/Russia stuff though is just ridiculous, but he's old. I know (former) world class scientists who are old, and also sadly ridiculous. Terrifying when you yourself are getting old.
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  He didn't walk back anything, it's incorrect. The Ukraine and Russia discussion is as boring, and consistent as Chomsky has always been.

feedforward 2y ago

When the US invaded Cambodia in 1970, Prince Sihanouk was ousted and Lon Nol took charge. Sihanouk then allied with the independent Cambodian communists, and after a war in which the US bombed Cambodia more than Europe was bombed in WWII, the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists took over in 1975. In 1979 the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and took over much of the country with the help of Vietnamese aligned communists. The US then began arming the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists not aligned with Vietnam. It also fought for their seat at the UN. So the US began arming and supporting Pol Pot in 1979, as did China. This was covered to one extent or another in the New York Times, Nightline etc. Don't really get people tut tutting Chomsky being a Vietnam and Cambodia dove when the US was arming Pol Pot starting in 1979.

Aloisius 2y ago
> when the US was arming Pol Pot starting in 1979. There is no concrete evidence the US armed the Khmer Rouge. At best, there is some evidence that some of the non-lethal aid provided to rival groups might have made it to the Khmer Rouge, but that's a far cry from arming them.
- feedforward 2y ago
  When Sihanouk and the communists are in alliance in 1975, and the head of state is Sihanouk - everything is blamed on the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that means. When the US begins arming the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists in 1979, then all the arms are going to "rival groups" in the Sihanouk/communist coalition. It's ridiculous.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Even if you can't tell the KPNLF from the Khmer Rouge, the US didn't arm the KPNLF either. It provided non-lethal aid.
    - feedforward 2y ago
      The KPNLF were in a coalition government from 1982 on with Sihanouk and the communists, whom you call the "Khmer Rouge". In fact the coalition with the communists happened as soon as the US began funding them - it was probably ordered by the US. Any how, the US fairly openly armed what you call the Khmer Rouge, I guess a sliver of plausible deniability is enough for the minority of people like you who want to deny it. Nightline even did a whole segment on it.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

> his words are uncomfortably close to justifying Pol Pot. Mind sharing what those words were or even your interpretation of them? Fwiw, I don't think any human being is right 100% of the time either. Doesn't mean we can't learn from anyone, warts and all