[Vision2020] Re: Noam Chomsky:Pol Pot

[David M. Budge]

Ted, as you can tell by the response that I was writing simultaneously 
as you were writing this, we really are not so far apart.  That is, 
excluding our respect for Chomsky.

As I've said before, I seem to never be able to miss an opportuinity to 
p_ss people off.  You should be able to tell, however, that I am not an 
absolute idiologue.

Dave Budge

Tbertruss at aol.com wrote:

>
> 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/20050212/4880a4f8/attachment.htm