Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6347)

Bloggingheads 12-02-2010 03:55 PM

An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 

bjkeefe 12-02-2010 04:17 PM

Hey, Glennzilla!
 
Cool! Looking forward to it.

operative 12-02-2010 05:42 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Ah, a pseudo libertarian and a far lefty. I thought bhtv would learn by now that it's better to have people who actually disagree with each other on matters. Instead we're treated to an hour of the alternative universe where wikileaks' actions did not endanger the lives of Afghani citizens and do not have significant geopolitical consequences--where we can instead choose to speak in vague generalities about "openness" and the such.

Boo.

bkjazfan 12-02-2010 06:22 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
I don't anticipate much disagreement with this one.

Well, 1/2 of the way through it and there is no disagreement.

popcorn_karate 12-02-2010 06:24 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
THANK GOD FOR GLENN GREENWALD!

that is all.

Baz 12-02-2010 06:24 PM

Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch
 
Remember when David Brooks called Chomsky a conspiracy theorist for stating that US corporations had an influence on US foreign policy.

Quote:

Instead we're treated to an hour of the alternative universe where wikileaks' actions did not endanger the lives of Afghani citizens and do not have significant geopolitical consequences
Are you being serious or are you just another zombie who believes everything your government does is morally perfect and unquestionable? Maybe the leaks did put some Afghani lives in danger, perfectly reasonable. But what we know for sure is that illegal drone attacks that are being condemned by the UN, Pakistan, and the Afghan government, have been killing innocent civilians for years. I'll repeat that again, US drones are killing innocent people. As an American citizen you are partly responsible for what your government is doing.

operative 12-02-2010 06:50 PM

Re: Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 190807)
Are you being serious or are you just another zombie who believes everything your government does is morally perfect and unquestionable?

\

Strawman.

Quote:

Maybe the leaks did put some Afghani lives in danger, perfectly reasonable. But what we know for sure is that illegal drone attacks that are being condemned by the UN, Pakistan, and the Afghan government, have been killing innocent civilians for years. I'll repeat that again, US drones are killing innocent people. As an American citizen you are partly responsible for what your government is doing.
Targeted assassinations are not illegal and I do not understand the relevance of your last sentence.

TwinSwords 12-02-2010 06:58 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 190806)
THANK GOD FOR GLENN GREENWALD!

Agreed.

Wm. Blaxton 12-02-2010 06:59 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
I've had no previous occasion to complain about the selection of dialogue participants, but it seems like if you're going to have the most serious and influential leftist blogger come on to discuss Wikileaks, you could pair him with one of the many liberals or conservatives who strongly disagrees with his rather extreme (in a bad way, in this case) position on the propriety of leaking State Department cables.

I like Welch as a dialogue participant in most contexts, but he's not ideologically inclined to challenge Greenwald on any issue of relevance, so it seems like BH.tv has missed a good opportunity for a healthy debate.

db63 12-02-2010 07:11 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
This was the best analysis of the modern American media I've seen in a long time.

jimM47 12-02-2010 07:12 PM

Re: Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190821)
Targeted assassinations are not illegal

A technicality perhaps, but: directly targeted killings of nonbelligerents by a state, which the US is alleged to have carried out, are violations of international humanitarian law, and may also infringe the rights of foreign sovereigns. (Not that political actors necessarily don't, can't, or shouldn't violate these things sometimes, particularly if they are willing to take responsibility.)

Baz 12-02-2010 08:10 PM

Re: Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190821)
\

Strawman.



Targeted assassinations are not illegal and I do not understand the relevance of your last sentence.

Just remember every time a drone attack kills someones daughter or son, thats another casualty of war of US foreign policy, and the blood is on your hands as a US citizen.

whburgess 12-02-2010 08:14 PM

Is WikiLeaks a news organization?
 
Can someone explain how Wikileaks is not a news organization? It seems as if this should be a main question--but few are discussing it.

Don't we have many cases of people in the government leaking classified information to NYT and other established news media--which in turn publish the information?

It is true that NYT and others will let the government see what they have and listen to any concerns of the government before its published. They will redact information that they agree with the government should be redacted.

Didn't Assange do the same thing? Didn't he ask the State department and the Defense department to go over the stuff before he published it?

operative 12-02-2010 08:32 PM

Re: Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 190835)
Just remember every time a drone attack kills someones daughter or son, thats another casualty of war of US foreign policy,

Targeted assassinations are carried out responsibly, to minimize potential civilian casualties. Cars are designed to maximize safety, but every once in a while one will be abberant and result in a death or deaths--the brakes will give out, etc. I guess GM has the blood of every auto accident fatality on their hands, eh?

graz 12-02-2010 08:41 PM

Re: Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190839)
Cars are designed to maximize safety, but every once in a while one will be abberant and result in a death or deaths--the brakes will give out, etc. I guess GM has the blood of every auto accident fatality on their hands, eh?

Just because your libertarian pipe dreams allow you to equate US Military with US corporations, doesn't mean that a consensus has been achieved. You're failing in your mission as an operative if you don't convert anyone. You lose again. Do your students respect you, in light of your intellectual intransigence?

Quote:

Targeted assassinations are carried out responsibly, to minimize potential civilian casualties.
Propaganda and bluster in one. A twofer.

graz 12-02-2010 08:48 PM

Re: Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190839)
Targeted assassinations are carried out responsibly, to minimize potential civilian casualties.

And sometimes we just give them vitamins.

chrisn 12-02-2010 10:31 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
I remember thinking about Chomsky when hearing about Assange, but I'm a fan of neither. Chomsky is an anarchist if nothing else, and a philosophical idealist. He's stayed relatively true to those ideals in his screeds against the U.S. government for failure to live up to those ideals. Of course, when you ask Chomsky what kind of government he would put in its place he doesn't really come up with much (where violence, corruption, graft, and self-interest are in constant tension to be overcome to achieve national goals and provide security and pursue common interest).

Such difficulties are left to people who actually wield that power responsibly, and according to ideals that may disagree with Chomsky's (you wouldn't hear it within all that hubris as he attacks them).

I do think that the government requires the vigilance of the people, and sacrifice of individuals (for all the other idealists ready to pounce against the straw man big gov't Republican), but it's for individuals to decide (some of those individuals base their actions and thinking upon the moral teachings of organized religion)

You don't hear about how Assange's organizantion is run much beyond the anarchic idealism he spouts. More like a glorified hacker. Like Chomsky, he prefers to live in his own idealism and attack a perceived enemy for failure to live up to his test. Technology has made it possible. Some good may come, but it's a low bar to set.

jeffmaylortx 12-02-2010 11:54 PM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190796)
Ah, a pseudo libertarian and a far lefty. I thought bhtv would learn by now that it's better to have people who actually disagree with each other on matters. Instead we're treated to an hour of the alternative universe where wikileaks' actions did not endanger the lives of Afghani citizens and do not have significant geopolitical consequences--where we can instead choose to speak in vague generalities about "openness" and the such.

Boo.

I have also noticed they keep bringing pseudo-libertarians on bbtv. Sadly, most of Reason's staff is more or less Leftist.

jeffmaylortx 12-02-2010 11:57 PM

Reason Magazine equals Big Yawn
 
Years ago I was excited when I found Reason magazine, thinking it was truly for capitalism and freedom. In time, I was saddened to discover all their passion is for smoking pot and open borders. The Left loves having these guys as the "opposition".

ohreally 12-03-2010 12:08 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisn (Post 190869)
Like Chomsky, he prefers to live in his own idealism and attack a perceived enemy for failure to live up to his test.

His test being? Not letting a government lie to its people while covering up an endless list of atrocities? Glad you went to government obedience school. One finely trained puppy you are.

ohreally 12-03-2010 12:18 AM

Re: Reason Magazine equals Big Yawn
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffmaylortx (Post 190879)
Years ago I was excited when I found Reason magazine, thinking it was truly for capitalism and freedom. In time, I was saddened to discover all their passion is for smoking pot and open borders. The Left loves having these guys as the "opposition".

Bullshit! You know nothing about the left. But then what else to expect from someone who feels a thrill going up his leg when he discovers a magazine that stands for "capitalism and freedom"? You guys make it too easy for us.

jeffmaylortx 12-03-2010 12:44 AM

Re: Reason Magazine equals Big Yawn
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 190885)
Bullshit! You know nothing about the left. But then what else to expect from someone who feels a thrill going up his leg when he discovers a magazine that stands for "capitalism and freedom"? You guys make it too easy for us.

Yes ohreally, I was excited when I found a magazine that supposedly extolled the virtues of capitalism and freedom. So you are opposed to both of these things?

chucklefist 12-03-2010 01:16 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190796)
Ah, a pseudo libertarian and a far lefty. I thought bhtv would learn by now that it's better to have people who actually disagree with each other on matters. Instead we're treated to an hour of the alternative universe where wikileaks' actions did not endanger the lives of Afghani citizens and do not have significant geopolitical consequences--where we can instead choose to speak in vague generalities about "openness" and the such.

Boo.

out of sincere curiosity - what makes matt a psuedo libertarian?

badhatharry 12-03-2010 01:52 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisn (Post 190869)
I remember thinking about Chomsky when hearing about Assange, but I'm a fan of neither. Chomsky is an anarchist if nothing else, and a philosophical idealist. He's stayed relatively true to those ideals in his screeds against the U.S. government for failure to live up to those ideals. Of course, when you ask Chomsky what kind of government he would put in its place he doesn't really come up with much...

Good point about Chomsky's habit of criticizing the corruption he sees around him and throughout history, but offering no alternative. After all what would he say, anyway..."if only we were better people! if only we weren't people at all!"

badhatharry 12-03-2010 01:56 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffmaylortx (Post 190877)
I have also noticed they keep bringing pseudo-libertarians on bbtv. Sadly, most of Reason's staff is more or less Leftist.

In what way is Reason's staff leftist?

Ken Davis 12-03-2010 02:14 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffmaylortx (Post 190877)
I have also noticed they keep bringing pseudo-libertarians on bbtv. Sadly, most of Reason's staff is more or less Leftist.

I love libertarian internecine squabbles over orthodoxy. Market pissing contests.

Leftists are never Capitalist ideologues.

jeffmaylortx 12-03-2010 04:12 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 190899)
In what way is Reason's staff leftist?

Every time I see someone from Reason, they are going out of there way to criticize people on the Right. It's very disappointing. They seem more interested in posing as "cool" and "counter culture" than actually promoting capitalism.

I understand a true libertarian would not be conservative, but Reason is endlessly piling on and attacking conservatives while leaving liberals fairly unscathed. They seem much more comfortable with Leftist intellectuals than "the people" ironically enough.

As I mentioned earlier, it seems like 90% of their airtime is focused on criticizing conservative personalities, promoting pot use, and agitating for open borders.

Baltimoron 12-03-2010 04:42 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
I thought there was more blather and chaff in this discussion than I could handle. Generally, I don't think any one cable will do much to change a policy, and thousands are just porn. Laypeople with no experience of the intelligence business have contradictory and unrealistic notions of what it is. But, I also do not want the world to be transparent, if that were even possible. I just don't think it possible. It's more a sledgehammer used to side-step real debate than a serious policy. It doesn't rule the need for debate on issues. And, that requires professionals who can analyze and communicate.

On a related note, Manning should be punished to the letter of the law.

bjkeefe 12-03-2010 05:15 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton (Post 190826)
I've had no previous occasion to complain about the selection of dialogue participants, but it seems like if you're going to have the most serious and influential leftist blogger come on to discuss Wikileaks, you could pair him with one of the many liberals or conservatives who strongly disagrees with his rather extreme (in a bad way, in this case) position on the propriety of leaking State Department cables.

I like Welch as a dialogue participant in most contexts, but he's not ideologically inclined to challenge Greenwald on any issue of relevance, so it seems like BH.tv has missed a good opportunity for a healthy debate.

I agree, and I would like to propose that Glenn return, to be paired with one of the many diavloggers we have heard from in the past few days, all of whom seemed to agree there was something fairly horrifying about Wikileaks.

bjkeefe 12-03-2010 05:19 AM

Re: Is WikiLeaks a news organization?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 190836)
Can someone explain how Wikileaks is not a news organization? It seems as if this should be a main question--but few are discussing it.

I admire Wikileaks, but I would not call them a news organization. They do not, as I understand it, devote any resources to going out to get stories or otherwise gather information themselves. Rather, they provide a service of secure distribution (and now, publication) of material others believe should be made public.

Quote:

Don't we have many cases of people in the government leaking classified information to NYT and other established news media--which in turn publish the information?
Yes, but that is far from all the NYT, etc., do. By analogy: because I shy away from large quantities of salt, am I a slug?

Okay, don't answer that.

bjkeefe 12-03-2010 05:30 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisn (Post 190869)
I remember thinking about Chomsky when hearing about Assange, but I'm a fan of neither. Chomsky is an anarchist if nothing else, and a philosophical idealist. He's stayed relatively true to those ideals in his screeds against the U.S. government for failure to live up to those ideals. Of course, when you ask Chomsky what kind of government he would put in its place he doesn't really come up with much ...

Possibly true, although one might argue that Chomsky would likely say he'd recommend an American-style government, perhaps with some tweaks in structure, living up to American (and other, more broadly human) ideals.

The point I'd really like to make, though, is this. I believe it is worthwhile, indeed valuable, to have articulate critics like Chomsky and radical believers in exposing secrets like Assange, and I do not think that they are required to have all the answers for them to be doing good. I also think that since we are as yet unable to establish and sustain anything close to a system that lives up to our ideals, the best we can hope for in the meantime is a dynamic tension between competing forces, and that this tension tugs us down the better roads. Of course I grant the need for secrets and of course I grant the harsh realities a government has to deal with. But both of these, left unchecked, tend to produce less than desirable outcomes, particularly when the government is so powerful. Therefore, I welcome various forces checking them, even as those forces are themselves guaranteed to be imperfect.

Wm. Blaxton 12-03-2010 07:25 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190917)
I believe it is worthwhile, indeed valuable, to have articulate critics like Chomsky and radical believers in exposing secrets like Assange, and I do not think that they are required to have all the answers for them to be doing good. I also think that since we are as yet unable to establish and sustain anything close to a system that lives up to our ideals, the best we can hope for in the meantime is a dynamic tension between competing forces, and that this tension tugs us down the better roads. Of course I grant the need for secrets and of course I grant the harsh realities a government has to deal with. But both of these, left unchecked, tend to produce less than desirable outcomes, particularly when the government is so powerful. Therefore, I welcome various forces checking them, even as those forces are themselves guaranteed to be imperfect.

Leaving aside Assange for the moment, I think it's a substantial problem with Chomsky's worldview that he presents no real alternative to our system.

I certainly agree with you that it's healthy for a society to have its aggressive critics, but if Chomsky's view is that the United States is flawed in part because it has failed to create an anarcho-syndicalist paradise or a Venezuelan social democracy, then he's useless. He's like a guy who complains, justifiably, that cars produce carbon emissions ... and then proposes with a straight face that we replace automobiles with giant helicopters and flying bicycles. He has made fair criticisms of specific U.S. policies, but the total package is unhelpful and also remarkably (for such an evidently brilliant guy) simplistic.

Chomsky is also routinely intellectually dishonest, as I was reminded watching a YouTube video in which he wildly mischaracterizes (in the course of criticizing) Huntington's Clash of Civilizations thesis to a receptive audience that has probably never read the article or the book. I don't know if this was reckless or intentional, but I suspect that it's one reason that Chomsky has rarely been part of any broader intellectual conversation (outside of his field of academic speciality). Another reason is his consistent posture of smug disdain for pretty much everybody he disagrees with.

bjkeefe 12-03-2010 07:37 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton (Post 190920)
Leaving aside Assange for the moment, I think it's a substantial problem with Chomsky's worldview that he presents no real alternative to our system.

I certainly agree with you that it's healthy for a society to have its aggressive critics, but if Chomsky's view is that the United States is flawed in part because it has failed to create an anarcho-syndicalist paradise or a Venezuelan social democracy, then he's useless.

Is that really his view?

I don't know Chomsky well enough to say for sure, but that sounds a bit unfair. Probably he would like some more social in our democracy, I agree. So would I. (And for the record, I do not much count Venezuela as a democracy these days.)

Beyond that, I can't really address what you go on to say about him, due, as I said, to my lack of deep familiarity with his views. I can only say that when I've heard him speak or be interviewed, he has not struck me as dishonest. At times a bit unreasonable, perhaps, but so what. He's being a critic, and sometimes critics choose to be a little extreme to get their points across.

[Added] Don't think I buy this:

Quote:

... Chomsky has rarely been part of any broader intellectual conversation ...
Seems to be an awful lot of mention of his name by many people, even if a lot of it is disparaging. But maybe the conversations I hear are not what you mean by intellectual.

Wm. Blaxton 12-03-2010 08:25 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190922)
Is that really his view? I don't know Chomsky well enough to say for sure, but that sounds a bit unfair. Probably he would like some more social in our democracy, I agree. So would I. (And for the record, I do not much count Venezuela as a democracy these days.)

Chomsky is very cagy about his affirmative (rather than critical) political beliefs, but as far as I can ascertain, he prefers some form of anarchism or anarcho-synidcalism to representative democracy. (He certainly implies as much in this interview, in which he says a number of weird and naive things. It's from 1976, but I'm not aware that he has said anything more illuminating or substantially modified his views since then.)

I should have put Venezuelan "social democracy" in scare quotes; I don't think it's a democracy, either, but Chomsky does (or at least thinks that "Chavismo" represents some sort of progress): "I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world ... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."

In other words, Chomsky is an external rather than an internal critic of liberal representative democracy. He's explicitly antiliberal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190922)
Beyond that, I can't really address what you go on to say about him, due, as I said, to my lack of deep familiarity with his views. I can only say that when I've heard him speak or be interviewed, he has not struck me as dishonest. At times a bit unreasonable, perhaps, but so what. He's being a critic, and sometimes critics choose to be a little extreme to get their points across.

Here he is talking about Clash of Civilizations. If you've read the book or the article, you'll notice that Chomsky totally misrepresents the argument in contrasting it with his own framework for understanding the world -- which is actually more simplistic than Huntington's. (Also: goddamn he's one smug S.O.B.) This suggests that he's either dishonest or stupid. And he's not stupid ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190922)
Seems to be an awful lot of mention of his name by many people, even if a lot of it is disparaging. But maybe the conversations I hear are not what you mean by intellectual.

He's certainly beloved by people who read nothing but him and Zinn. As far as I can tell, Chomsky would rather preach to the choir rather than engage the compelling criticisms of his cartoonish political outlook.

graz 12-03-2010 08:39 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Chomsky's relevance to this dv is best expressed by: Maufacturing Consent.

Which is a recurring theme for Glen Greenwald as well.

operative 12-03-2010 08:52 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chucklefist (Post 190895)
out of sincere curiosity - what makes matt a psuedo libertarian?

As jeff points out, he spends most of his time criticizing people much closer to libertarians than Obama, who is the farthest from a libertarian of any modern major politician in America. He wrote an entire book attacking McCain, who is much more libertarian than Obama, to help Obama get elected. He's a definitive liberaltarian: a social liberal who feels vaguely somewhat free market but is more than willing to compromise the latter in pursuit of the former.

Wm. Blaxton 12-03-2010 08:54 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
It's actually quite fascinating to hear Chomsky say (as he does at around 12:30 in Manufacturing Consent) that he can't find any connection between his work in linguistics and cognition and his anarchist political tendencies. To simplify greatly, I'd say that his academic work (e.g., the concept of universal grammar and the critique of behavioralism) suggests that human nature exists and is not terribly mutable -- which doesn't bode well for anarchism, does it?

operative 12-03-2010 08:55 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton (Post 190925)
Chomsky is very cagy about his affirmative (rather than critical) political beliefs, but as far as I can ascertain, he prefers some form of anarchism or anarcho-synidcalism to representative democracy. (He certainly implies as much in this interview, in which he says a number of weird and naive things. It's from 1976, but I'm not aware that he has said anything more illuminating or substantially modified his views since then.)

I should have put Venezuelan "social democracy" in scare quotes; I don't think it's a democracy, either, but Chomsky does (or at least thinks that "Chavismo" represents some sort of progress): "I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world ... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."

In other words, Chomsky is an external rather than an internal critic of liberal representative democracy. He's explicitly antiliberal.



Here he is talking about Clash of Civilizations. If you've read the book or the article, you'll notice that Chomsky totally misrepresents the argument in contrasting it with his own framework for understanding the world -- which is actually more simplistic than Huntington's. (Also: goddamn he's one smug S.O.B.) This suggests that he's either dishonest or stupid. And he's not stupid ...



He's certainly beloved by people who read nothing but him and Zinn. As far as I can tell, Chomsky would rather preach to the choir rather than engage the compelling criticisms of his cartoonish political outlook.

I think you can be far more direct: Chomsky is pro-tyrant. He defended the worst regime in human history (Khmer Rouge), serving as their PR spin machine. Now he defends a less morally disgusting but still essentially authoritarian regime in Venezuela. Chomsky is a scary person who is basically a monster. He'd have no problem with a genocide in America and a 1984 style regime so long as it suited his goals.

bjkeefe 12-03-2010 08:56 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton (Post 190925)
Chomsky is very cagy about his affirmative (rather than critical) political beliefs, but as far as I can ascertain, he prefers some form of anarchism or anarcho-synidcalism to representative democracy. (He certainly implies as much in this interview, in which he says a number of weird and naive things. It's from 1976, but I'm not aware that he has said anything more illuminating or substantially modified his views since then.)

[...]

In other words, Chomsky is an external rather than an internal critic of liberal representative democracy. He's explicitly antiliberal.

Having skimmed the two Wikipedia entries on his political views, I'll go along with "anarcho-syndicalism" but given his views on such matters as free speech and the welfare state, along with his opposition to what he calls illegitimate authority and his self-description as favoring "libertarian socialism," as well as the strong favorable views many on the left hold of him, I don't agree with your label "explicitly antiliberal."

I don't usually like to get engaged in discussions about labels and who does or does not deserve them, but I am curious why you call him this.

Wm. Blaxton 12-03-2010 09:06 AM

Re: An Advertisement for Openness (Glenn Greenwald & Matt Welch)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190930)
Chomsky is a scary person who is basically a monster. He'd have no problem with a genocide in America and a 1984 style regime so long as it suited his goals.

I agree that he's bad, but I've seen no evidence for this.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.