[Vision2020] Re: Noam Chomsky:Pol Pot

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Dave et. al.

Below find two links, one to an extensive documented analysis concerning Noam 
Chomsky and the Cambodian/Pol Pot controversy that is critical of Chomsky, 
and a defense of Chomsky on this controversy by Christopher Hitchens.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

Some of Chomsky's statements can be presented to support the assertion that 
he "endorsed" Pol Pot.  But like any statement that is taken out of context, 
this can be very misleading.  Consider that the rise of the Khmer Rouge occurred 
in the chaos during and after the Vietnam war and the consequences of the 
extensive US bombing of Cambodia, which inflicted a horrific human toll on that 
country.  Some of Chomsky's statements during this period were made in the 
context of looking for a positive political development in a country devastated by 
the effects of the Vietnam war and the US bombing.  And Chomsky was oriented 
for years toward exposing what he saw as a bias in the US media to shift the 
focus during the 1970s from the atrocities that the US committed and was 
complicit in committing in the bombing campaign against Cambodia, the war in 
Vietnam, and by Indonesia in East Timor, towards a focus on the atrocities of the 
Khmer Rouge, minimizing the emphasis on the former examples and exaggerating the 
later.  

This is consistent with the aim of much of his political work that has 
focused on how filters in the media slant the reporting of atrocities away from 
those with US involvement toward those that become the official "whipping" boys of 
the day.  

To pick my own examples, when the US supported Saddam in the war against 
Iran, when Saddam's notorious gassing incidents occurred, how often in the media 
were we reminded of the atrocities of Saddam?  Now compare that to how often we 
have been reminded of Saddam's atrocities since the US no longer viewed 
Saddam as a "useful" ally.  Or consider the reporting of the atrocities committed 
by Turkey, a US ally, against the Kurds during the 1990s, compared to the 
reporting of the atrocities Saddam committed against the Kurds.  Many in the US 
have heard of Saddam's abuse of the Kurds, but a much smaller number even know 
there are Kurds in Turkey, much less that significant atrocities were committed 
against the Kurds by the Turkish government.

I'll leave the complex web of statements and history involved regarding 
Chomsky and Pol Pot for others to examine in more detail, if they chose, at the 
links I offer above, which I chose as an attempt to present both "sides" of this 
controversy.  But Hitchens does refute several of the claims that Chomsky was 
a Pol Pot supporter.  Even the other article more damning of Chomsky is 
careful to balance the virulent attacks against Chomsky with the fact that Chomsky 
fully acknowledges the brutality of the Khmer Rouge regime.

But your aside about Chomsky can be read to imply he was endorsing a brutal 
and cruel dictator, which is the image that will pop into the minds of many who 
read the statement "Chomsky endorsed Pol Pot."  Chomsky would condemn any 
mass murder at the hands of any government or dictator.  Including any committed 
by the US.

Your statement was a cheap shot, aimed at discrediting a serious and 
brilliant thinker, without providing any context to give balance or fairness to 
Chomsky's views.

But this is what dogmatic adherence to one political ideology in a world of 
diverse political and economic systems tends to induce:  attacks on those who 
present intelligent and well reasoned refutations of the "faith" utilizing 
hyperbole and out of context quotes.  Chomsky himself may be guilty of the sort of 
bias I suggest here, so I do not uncritically follow Chomsky's thought.

I think "political science" is an oxymoron.  The ongoing experiment of the 
human race in organizing our lives with a variety of economic and political 
systems should be viewed as just that, an experiment in progress that has not 
provided us with enough data to fully assess what exact economic or political 
system is best.  Furthermore, is it valid to think we will find one system to be 
the "best" for all societies, or to even try in the US to homogenize our 
political/economic system under one ideological banner?  Considering the diversity 
of cultures and religions, etc., in our world, the widely differing value 
systems, perhaps what is best is diversity:  one nation to be mostly libertarian 
capitalist, another nation to be more liberal socialist, another nation to be 
governed according to a religious faith, another to follow a benevolent (please 
don't quote me our of context here) dictator, and so on.  

Indeed, I think that the diversity of types of political/economic entities in 
the USA is a secret to our strength.  I do not want socialists to dominate 
our government anymore than corporate capitalists, anti-corporate libertarians, 
anarchists, Marxist communists or those seeking a theocratic state.  I want 
power sharing and disagreement.  I want a US Congress with libertarians, 
capitalists, anarchists, socialists, communists, Gaia worshiping environmentalists, 
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu and Buddhists.  I want diversity of arguments 
and values and faith.  I do not want a super efficient government (again, 
please don't quote me out of context), for this implies dominant control by one 
group able to push their agenda without opposition, when opposition necessarily 
bogs down government efficiency.

Chaos perhaps?  Maybe.

In the final analysis, any political or economic system where the most 
powerful players are cruel and greedy will be undesirable, well, unless perhaps you 
are the one benefiting.  Even a democracy can vote to allow the state to be a 
mass murderer.  Should we thus abandon democracy?

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050212/e70ccc29/attachment.htm