3 ms·

I am a huge fan of Snowdens, of ending the Orwellian institutionalization of our democratic society, and even of Chomsky's statements in this instance but in So

I am a huge fan of Snowdens, of ending the Orwellian institutionalization of our democratic society, and even of Chomsky's statements in this instance but in Soup10's defence, Noam Chomsky IS an anti-American/anti-Government liberal socialist anarchist (in fact that is how he would describe HIMSELF) who uses linguistic gymnastics to de-construct cultural norms in a way the reflects his own ideology. As such he almost exclusively preaches to those already with a natural sympathy towards his world-view, in such language as is meant to incite. Finally, while Chomsky is obviously a genius well beyond the trite use of that word; he undoubted can be described as both self righteous and egotistical regardless of their justification. Honestly, Soup10's only real mistake was in suggested that Chomsky's ideas should not be taken seriously. Even if one doesn't agree with him, many will based solely on the position he holds in the pantheon of liberal intelligentsia. Meaning that his words are likely to effect the debase of this issue going forward and should not, therefore, be lightly cast aside.

ak39 13y ago
Define "Anti-American" please.
- kaonashi 13y ago
  The belief that America should not be constrained by the morality of its actions. Essentially the same Nixonian argument "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal", which becomes "when the United States does it, that means it's not immoral or illegal".
gruseom 13y ago
Chomsky would never describe himself as anti-American. He's a critic of power structures. His focus is on U.S. power structures because (a) they're the most impactful and (b) in the classic prophetic/dissident tradition, he believes that one ought to criticize one's own house before condemning others. That's actually an act of loyalty, or can be, despite its inevitably being met with anger at the time. History tends to take the opposite view, of course. I've heard Chomsky speak about his feelings toward the U.S. a couple times in interviews and it was quite clear that he's devoted to it. (IIRC he even described it as "the greatest country in the world", or agreed with a questioner who so described it. I remember being surprised that he didn't demur at that.) He talked about how he feels much more comfortable with American values than anywhere else he's traveled. But he clearly doesn't like to talk about himself, let alone proclaim national sentiments, so there aren't many instances of this.
dllthomas 13y ago
I don't think he would use the term "anti-American" in describing himself (or anyone else): http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise. Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah. It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.
kaonashi 13y ago
His 'worldview' is essentially 'the U.S. shouldn't interfere with the self-determination of other countries'. It's an uncontroversial position enshrined in international law. It only becomes problematic when you feel the need to defend U.S. actions that contradict what is essentially simple elementary morality.

ak39 13y ago

Define "Anti-American" please.

kaonashi 13y ago
The belief that America should not be constrained by the morality of its actions. Essentially the same Nixonian argument "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal", which becomes "when the United States does it, that means it's not immoral or illegal".

gruseom 13y ago

Chomsky would never describe himself as anti-American. He's a critic of power structures. His focus is on U.S. power structures because (a) they're the most impactful and (b) in the classic prophetic/dissident tradition, he believes that one ought to criticize one's own house before condemning others. That's actually an act of loyalty, or can be, despite its inevitably being met with anger at the time. History tends to take the opposite view, of course. I've heard Chomsky speak about his feelings toward the U.S. a couple times in interviews and it was quite clear that he's devoted to it. (IIRC he even described it as "the greatest country in the world", or agreed with a questioner who so described it. I remember being surprised that he didn't demur at that.) He talked about how he feels much more comfortable with American values than anywhere else he's traveled. But he clearly doesn't like to talk about himself, let alone proclaim national sentiments, so there aren't many instances of this.

dllthomas 13y ago

I don't think he would use the term "anti-American" in describing himself (or anyone else): http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20021209.htm The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise. Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah. It's interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia, against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are quoting.

kaonashi 13y ago

His 'worldview' is essentially 'the U.S. shouldn't interfere with the self-determination of other countries'. It's an uncontroversial position enshrined in international law. It only becomes problematic when you feel the need to defend U.S. actions that contradict what is essentially simple elementary morality.