Political positions of Noam Chomsky

src: newsdeeply.imgix.net

Noam Chomsky is an intellectual, political activist, and critic of US foreign policy and other governments. Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist, an anarcho-syndicalism sympathizer, and is considered a key intellectual figure in the left wing of US politics.

Video Political positions of Noam Chomsky

Pandangan politik

Chomsky is often described as one of America's most famous figures, though he disagrees with the use of the term. He has described himself as a "fellow traveler" to an anarchist tradition, and calls himself a libertarian socialist, a political philosophy which he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and tries to eliminate them if they are not justified for which the burden of proof is solely on those who seek to exerting power. He identifies with anarcho-syndicalist labor-oriented anarchism in certain cases, and is a member of the World Industrial Workers. He also showed some support for the participatory economic libertarian socialist vision, himself a member of the Interim Committee for International Organizations for Participatory Communities.

He believes that libertarian socialist values ​​show a rational and morally consistent extension of classical liberal and classical humanist ideas that are not reconstructed in the industrial context.

Chomsky has further declared himself to have held the Zionist belief, although he notes that his Zionist definition would be considered the most anti-Zionism of late, the result of what he regarded as a shift (since the 1940s) in the sense of Zionism ( Readers Chomsky ).

Chomsky is considered "one of the most influential leftwing critics of American foreign policy" by the Modern Dictionary of American Philosophers.

Freedom of speech

Chomsky has taken a strong stance against censorship and for freedom of speech, even for the views he personally condemns. He has stated that "with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer a Stalinist/fascist standard".

About terrorism

Obama, first of all, runs the largest terrorist operation available, perhaps in history.

In response to the US declaration on the "War on Terrorism" in 1981 and a repeat statement in 2001, Chomsky argues that the main source of international terrorism is the world's major forces, led by the United States government. He uses the definition of terrorism from the US army manual, which defines it as "the use of perceived violence or the threat of violence to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives through intimidation, coercion, or incitement of fear." In connection with the US invasion of Afghanistan he stated:

The innocent civilian murder is terrorism, not the war against terrorism. ( 9-11 , p 76)

About the efficacy of terrorism:

One is the fact that terrorism works. It did not fail. It worked. Violence usually works. That is the history of the world. Second, it is a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is a weak weapon. Like any other means of violence, it is primarily a powerful weapon, very, in fact. Maintained as a weak weapon because the strong also control the doctrinal system and their terror is not counted as terror. Well, that's close to universal. I can not think of historical exceptions; even the worst mass murderers see such a world. So, take the Nazis. They do not commit terror in occupied Europe. They protect local people from partisan terrorism. And like any other resistance movement, there is terrorism. Nazis do counter terror.

Regarding support for condemning terrorism, Chomsky argues that terrorism (and violence/authority in general) is generally bad and can only be justified in cases where it is clear that greater terrorism (or violence, or abuse of authority) is thus avoided. In a debate on the legitimacy of political violence in 1967, Chomsky argued that the "terror" of the Vietnam Liberation Front (Viet Cong) was not justified, but the terror was theoretically justified under certain circumstances:

I do not accept the view that we could have condemned the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really should ask a question about such comparative, ugly costs it might sound. And if we're going to take a moral position on this - and I think we should - we should ask what the consequences of using terror and not using terror. If it is true that the consequence of not using terror is that the peasants in Vietnam will continue to live in a peasant state in the Philippines, then I think the use of terror will be justified. But, as I said before, I do not think it is the use of terror that leads to success being achieved.

Chomsky believes that the actions he perceives terrorism by the US government do not pass this test, and his condemnation of US foreign policy is one of the main thrusts of his writings which he has explained because he lives in the United States, answer to the actions of his country.

Criticisms of the United States government

If Nuremberg's law is applied, every post-war American president will be hanged.

Chomsky has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the US government, and criticism of US foreign policy has been the basis of much of his political writing. Chomsky provides an excuse to direct his activist efforts to the state in which he is a citizen. He believed that his work could have more impact when directed to his own government, and that he held the responsibility of being a member of a certain country of origin to work to stop the country from committing crimes. He often expresses this idea by comparison of other countries who argue that every country has the flexibility to deal with crimes by unfortunate countries, but always does not want to deal with their own country. Speaking in Nicaragua in 1986, Chomsky was asked, "We feel that through what you say and write you are our friend, but at the same time you are talking about North American imperialism and Russian imperialism with the same breath I ask you how you can use the same argument as reactionary? "which Chomsky responded to,

I have been accused of everything and therefore included being a reactionary. From my personal experience, there are two countries where my political writing basically can not arise. One is the US in the mainstream with the exception of a very rare. The other is the Soviet Union. I think what we have to do is try to understand the truth about the world. And the truth about the world is usually quite unpleasant. My own concerns are mainly the terror and violence perpetrated by my own country, for two reasons. For one thing, because this is the biggest component of international violence. But also for reasons far more important than that; ie, i can do something about that. So even if the US is responsible for 2 percent of the world's violence and not the majority, it will be the 2 percent I will be responsible for. And that is a simple ethical assessment. That is, the ethical value of one's actions depends on anticipated and predictable consequences. It's easy to criticize other people's cruelty. It has as much ethical value as it condemns the atrocities that occurred in the 18th century.

The point is that a useful and significant political action is an action that has consequences for human beings. And it's all an action that you have several ways to influence and control, which to me means an American action. But I was also involved in protesting against Soviet imperialism, and also explaining its roots in Soviet society. And I think that anyone in the Third World will make a big mistake if they succumb to the illusion of these things.

He also argues that the United States, as the world's remaining superpower, acts in an equally offensive way like all superpowers. One of the most important things that superpowers do, Chomsky argues, is trying to organize the world according to the interests of its founding, using military and economic means. Chomsky has repeatedly stressed that the overall framework of US foreign policy can be explained by the domestic dominance of US business interests and the drive to secure the country's capitalist system. These interests set the political agenda and economic goals that primarily aim at the dominance of the US economy.

The conclusion is that a consistent part of US foreign policy is based on stemming "the threat of a good example." This 'threat' refers to the possibility that a country can succeed beyond the US-run global system, thus presenting a model for other countries, including countries where the United States has strong economic interests. This, Chomsky said, has prompted the United States to repeatedly intervene to quell "independent development, regardless of ideology" in regions of the world where it has little economic or safety interests. In one of his works, What really wanted Uncle Sam, Chomsky argued that this particular explanation partly contributed to US intervention in Guatemala, Laos, Nicaragua, and Grenada, countries that did not pose a military threat. to the US and has unimportant economic resources for US formation.

Chomsky claims that the US Cold War policy is not primarily shaped by anti-Soviet paranoia, but rather on preserving the ideological and economic dominance of the United States in the world. In his book Condemning Democracy, he argues that conventional understanding of the Cold War as the confrontation of the two superpowers is "ideological construction". He insisted that to truly understand the Cold War one must examine the motives underlying the great power. The underlying motive can only be found by analyzing domestic politics, especially the goals of the domestic elites in each country:

Placing second-order complexity aside, for the Soviet Union the Cold War was primarily a war against its satellites, and for the US war against the Third World. For each, it has served to dismantle certain systems of privilege and domestic coercion. The policies pursued within the framework of the Cold War do not appeal to the general public, who only accept them under pressure. Throughout history, the standard device for mobilizing a reluctant population is the fear of the enemy, dedicated to its destruction. Superpower conflicts work well, both for internal needs, as we see in the rhetoric of fever top planning documents such as NSC 68, and in public propaganda. The Cold War has functional utility for the superpower, one reason why it survives.

Chomsky says the US economic system is primarily a state capitalist system, in which public funds are used to research and develop pioneering technologies (computers, the internet, radar, jet planes, etc.). Mostly in the form of defense spending, and once again developed and matured this technology submitted to the corporate sector where civil use is developed for personal control and profit.

Chomsky often expressed his admiration for the civil liberties enjoyed by US citizens. According to Chomsky, other Western democracies such as France and Canada are less liberal in their defense of controversial speech than the US. However, he does not praise the American government for this freedom but the mass social movements in the United States that are fighting for them. The most frequent movements he calls are abolitionist movements, movements for workers' rights and trade union organizations, and the struggle for African-American civil rights. Chomsky is often very critical of other governments who suppress freedom of speech, the most controversial in Faurisson's affairs but also the suppression of free speech in Turkey.

At the fifth annual Edward W. Said Memorial Anniversary held by Heyman Center for the Humanities in December 2009, Chomsky began his speech on "Unipolar Momentum and Culture of Imperialism" by praising Edward Said for calling attention to "American imperialism culture".

When the US formation celebrates the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 2009, Chomsky said this warning ignores the forgotten human rights violations that occurred just one week after the event. On November 16, 1989, the US-powered Atlacatl Battalion in El Salvador killed six Latin American Jesuit priests, he explained. He compared America's "congratulations" to the destruction of the Berlin Wall with the "silence" that surrounded the killing of priests, arguing that the US sacrificed democratic principles for its own sake, and without criticizing itself. tend to "focus the laser beam on enemy crime, but most importantly we make sure to never see ourselves."

Criticisms of US democracy

Chomsky argues that a country is only democratic to the extent that government policy reflects informed public opinion. He noted that the US does have a formal democratic structure, but they are dysfunctional. He argues that the presidential election is funded by a concentration of private power and governed by the public relations industry, focusing on discussions mainly on the quality and image of candidates rather than issues. Chomsky made reference to several public opinion studies by survey agencies such as Gallup and Zogby and by academic sources such as the International Policy Attitudes Program at the University of Maryland (PIPA). Citing a poll taken ahead of the 2004 elections, Chomsky pointed out that only a small minority of voters said they voted for candidate "ideas/ideas/platforms/goals". In addition, research shows that the majority of Americans have an attitude on domestic issues such as health care coverage that is not represented by one of the big parties. Chomsky has compared US elections with elections in countries like Spain, Bolivia, and Brazil, where he claims people are much better informed about important issues.

Since the 2000 election, with regard to third-party voting, Chomsky has defended "if it is a swing, keep the worst people away, if that's another situation, do what you feel." When asked if he voted in the 2008 election, he replied:

I chose green. If I am in a state of swing - this [Massachusetts] is a permanent state - if I am in a swing state I will probably hold my nose and vote for Obama. Just to avoid alternatives, which is worse. I have no hope about him and I am not the least bit disappointed. In fact I wrote about him before the preliminary election. I thought he was horrible.

Views

on globalization

Chomsky made an early attempt to critically analyze globalization. He sums up the process with the phrase "old wine, new bottle", maintaining that the motives of ÃÆ' Â © lites are the same as usual: they seek to isolate the general population from important decision-making processes; the difference is that power centers now are transnational corporations and banks supranational. Chomsky argues that the power of transnational corporations is "developing their own governing institutions" that reflect their global reach.

According to Chomsky, the main tactics are the co-optation of the global economic institutions established at the end of World War II, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which increasingly embrace the "Washington Consensus", require developing countries to abide by spending limits and make structural adjustments that often involve reduction in social and welfare programs. IMF aid and loans usually rely on such reforms. Chomsky claims that the construction of global institutions and agreements such as the World Trade Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Multilateral Agreement on Investments are a new way to secure ÃÆ' Â © lite privileges while destroying democracy. Chomsky believes that these vigorous and neo-liberal measures ensure that poor countries only fulfill the role of services by providing cheap labor, raw materials and investment opportunities for developed countries. In addition, this means that companies can threaten to move to poor countries, and Chomsky sees this as a powerful weapon to keep workers in rich countries aligned.

Chomsky takes issue with the term used in the discourse on globalization, beginning with the term "globalization" itself, which he maintains refers to the corporate-sponsored economic integration rather than being a general term for things that become international. He disliked the anti-globalization term used to describe what he regarded as a movement for the globalization of social and environmental justice. Chomsky understands what is popularly called "free trade" as "a mixture of liberalization and protection designed by the architects of the main policy in serving their interests, who happen to be whatever they are in a given period." In his writings, Chomsky has drawn attention to the globalization movement of resistance. He described the Zapatista's defiance of NAFTA in his essay "The Zapatista Uprising." He also criticized the Multilateral Agreement on Investments, and reported the activists' efforts that led to his defeat. Chomsky's voice was an important part of the criticism that provided a theoretical backbone for different groups united for a demonstration against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in November 1999.

Views on socialism and communism

Chomsky is very critical of what he calls "state corporate capitalism" which he believes is practiced by the United States and other western countries. He supports many of the anarchist (or libertarian socialist) ideas of Mikhail Bakunin. Chomsky has identified Bakunin's comments on totalitarian state as a prediction for a brutal Soviet police state that will emerge in essays such as USSR Versus Socialism . He also defines Soviet communism as "false socialism", especially since any named socialism needs an authentic democratic control over production and resources and public ownership. He said that contrary to what many people claim in America, the collapse of the Soviet Union should be regarded as a "small victory for socialism", not capitalism. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Chomsky explicitly condemned Soviet imperialism; for example in 1986 when a question/answer followed a lecture he gave at the Universidad Centroamericana in Nicaragua, when challenged by an audience member about how he could "speak of North American imperialism and Russian imperialism with the same breath," Chomsky replied: the truth about the world is that there are two superpowers, one great power that happens to have boots on your neck, another, a smaller force that happens to have shoes on the neck of someone else.And I think that anyone in the Third World will make mistakes great if they succumb to the illusion of these things. "

Chomsky was also impressed with socialism as was done in Vietnam. In a speech given in Hanoi on April 13, 1970, and broadcast by Radio Hanoi the next day, Chomsky spoke of "his admiration for the Vietnamese people who have been able to defend themselves against fierce attacks, and at the same time take a big step forward towards socialist society. "Chomsky praised North Vietnam for their efforts in building material welfare, social justice, and cultural progress. He also went on to discuss and support the political writing of LÃÆ'ª Du? N.

In his 1973 For Country Reasons, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "slave wages" or authoritarian systems in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, society can function. without paid work. He argues that the people of a country should be free to pursue the work they choose. People will be free to do what they like, and the jobs they voluntarily choose will be "beneficial in themselves" and "socially beneficial." Society will be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, without any other state or authoritarian institution. Jobs that are basically unpopular, if any, will be distributed evenly among all people.

Chomsky has always been critical of the Soviet Union and he is now accepting that Mao's regime in China is responsible for 'a huge death toll, in the tens of millions'. However, in the 1960s, Chomsky was very less critical of the communist movement in Asia, noting what he regarded as a grassroots element in Chinese and Vietnamese communism. In December 1967, during a forum in New York, Chomsky responded to the criticism of the Chinese revolution as follows: "I do not feel that they deserve a criticism at all There are many things to be challenged in any society, but take China, modern China "Someone also finds a lot of really amazing things." Chomsky goes on: "There is even a better example of China, but I think that China is an important example of a new society where the most interesting positive things happen at the level local, where much collectivization and communi- ty are really based on mass participation and occur after the level of understanding has been reached in the peasants leading to the next step. "He said of Vietnam:" While there seems to be a high level of democratic participation at the village and local levels , still great planning is very centralized in the hands of the state authorities. " In the context of a statement on top oil topics in April 2005, Chomsky declared "China is probably the most polluted country in the world - you can not see.This is a totalitarian state, so they sort of force it on people, but the pollution levels are so bad... " Views

on Marxism

Chomsky is critical of the dogmatic styles of Marxism, and the notion of Marxism itself, but still appreciates Marx's contribution to political thought. Unlike some anarchists, Chomsky does not regard Bolshevism as "Marxism in practice", but he acknowledges that Marx is a complex figure with conflicting ideas; while he recognizes latent authoritarianism in Marx he also points to a libertarian strain that developed into the council communism of Rosa Luxembourg and Pannekoek. However, his commitment to libertarian socialism has led him to characterize himself as an anarchist with a radical Marxist tendency.

Views on anarchism

In practice Chomsky tends to emphasize the philosophical tendency of anarchism to criticize all forms of unlawful authority. He has been reluctant to theorize about anarchist societies in detail, although he has described the possible value system and its institutional framework extensively. According to Chomsky, the kind of anarchism he craved was

... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as a libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in tradition, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They are in the mind of a highly organized form of society, but a society organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they mean workplace and environment, and from the two basic units there can be obtained through federal arrangements such as a highly integrated social organization that may be national or even international. And these decisions can be made within a substantial range, but by the delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, where they return, and where, in fact, they live.

Regarding the issue of political and economic institution government, Chomsky consistently emphasizes the importance of grassroots democracy form. Thus, the representative British democratic institution today "will be criticized by an anarchist from this school for two reasons: first because there is a centralized monopoly of power in the state, and secondly - and critically - because representative democracy is limited to the political sphere and not there is a serious disruption in the economy. "

Chomsky believes anarchism is a direct descendant of liberalism, perfecting the ideals of personal freedom and the government of the Enlightenment at a minimum. He views libertarian socialism as the logical conclusion of liberalism, broadening its democratic ideals into the economy, making anarchism an inherent socialist philosophy.

Views on American libertarianism

Noam Chomsky has described libertarianism, as understood in the United States, as, "the extreme advocacy of total tyranny" and "the extreme opposite of so-called libertarians in every other part of the world since the Enlightenment."

Views on welfare conditions

Chomsky strongly opposes his view that anarchism is inconsistent with support for the 'welfare state' act, suggesting that some

One can, of course, take a position we do not care about the problems facing people today, and want to think about the possibilities of tomorrow. OK, but do not pretend to be interested in humans and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other special people. Or someone can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow - a classic anarchist position, very different from the slogans in the question. That's exactly right, and it leads directly to support for people facing current problems: for enforcement of health and safety regulations, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. It is not a sufficient condition to set for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive a good insult-worthy of those who have no luxury to ignore the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive.

Mass media analysis

Another focus of Chomsky's political work is the analysis of mainstream mass media (especially in the United States), which he accuses of maintaining the barriers of dialogue so as to advance the interests of corporations and governments.

Edward S. Herman and Chomsky's book Manufacture Approval: Political Economy Mass Media explores this topic in depth, presenting their "propaganda model" from the news media with some detailed case studies to support it. According to this propaganda model, more democratic societies such as the United States use subtle and nonviolent control methods, unlike totalitarian systems, where physical strength is readily used to force the general public. In a frequently quoted statement, Chomsky states that "propaganda is democracy, what is a stumbling block for a totalitarian state" ( Media Control ).

This model tries to explain such systemic biases in terms of structural economic causes rather than people's conspiracies. It argues the bias comes from five "filters" that all published news must pass that combine to systematically distort news coverage.

1. The first filter, ownership, notes that most media outlets are owned by large companies.
2. The second, funding, notes that outlets get most of their funds from advertising, not readers. So, since they are a profit-oriented business that sells products - readers and audiences - to other businesses (advertisers), the model will expect them to publish news that will reflect the wishes and values ​​of the business.
3. In addition, news media rely on government agencies and large businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for most of the information.
4. Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups that follow the media for the supposed bias and so on when they get out of line.
5. Norm, the fifth filter, refers to the general concept they have in the journalism profession.

Therefore, this model tries to illustrate how the media established a decentralized and non-conspirator yet highly powerful propaganda system capable of mobilizing the consensus "ÃÆ' Â © lite", framing public debates in the "ÃÆ' Â © lite" perspective and at the moment giving the impression of a democratic agreement.

In May 2017, Chomsky supported Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn in the upcoming English election by saying, "If I were a voter in England, I would vote for him [Jeremy Corbyn]." He claims that Corbyn would do better in the polls if it were not for the "bitter" hostility of the mainstream media, he said, "If he has fair treatment from the media - it will make a big difference."

Chomsky and Middle East

Chomsky "grows... in Jewish-Zionist cultural tradition" (Peck, p.Ã, 11). His father was one of the foremost scholars of Hebrew and taught at the religious school. Chomsky also has a long fascination with and involvement in Zionist politics. As he describes:

I am very interested in... Zionist affairs and activities - or what is then called 'Zionist', although the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionists'. I am interested in the choice of socialist, binationalist for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole system of cooperative work that has evolved in the Jewish settlements there (Yishuv)... The vague ideas I had at the time [1947] had to go to Palestine, probably to the kibbutz, to try to engage in Arab-Jewish cooperation efforts within a socialist framework, opposing the deeply antidemocratic concept of the Jewish state (a position considered to be good in the mainstream of Zionism). (Peck, p.7)

He is very critical of Israeli policies against the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. His book The Fateful Triangle is regarded as one of the main texts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among those who oppose Israeli policy with respect to Palestine as well as American support for the state of Israel. He also accused Israel of "guiding state terrorism" for selling weapons to apartheid South Africa and the Latin American countries that it characterized as a US puppet state, for example. Guatemala in the 1980s, as well as US-backed paramilitaries (or, according to Chomsky, terrorists) such as the Nicaraguan Contras. ( What Uncle Sam really wants, chapter 2.4) Chomsky characterizes Israel as a "mercenary state", "Sparta Israel", and military dependence on the US hegemonic system. He has also criticized the sectors of the American Jewish community for their role in winning US support, stating that "they should be more properly called 'proponents of moral degeneration and the final destruction of Israel'" (Fateful Triangle, p.Ã, 4). He said about the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):

The official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Pollution League B'nai B'rith, interprets anti-Semitism as a reluctance to conform to its requirements with respect to support for Israeli authorities.... Logically straightforward: Anti-Semitism is an opposition to Israeli interests ADL sees them.)... ADL has virtually abandoned its previous role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the US, as the Israeli press casually describes it, engages in reconnaissance, blacklisting, compilation of style files FBI circulated to adherents for defamation purposes, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. This effort, underpinned by satire of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, is intended to deflect or weaken opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with US backing, to move towards a general political solution.

See also Middle East Politics, address given at Columbia University in 1999

In a 2004 interview with Jennifer Bleyer published The Ugly Planet, second edition and in Heeb magazine, Chomsky stated:

It ends that about 90% of the land [in Israel] is reserved for people of racial, religious, and Jewish origin. If 90% of the land in the United States is reserved for whites, races of Christianity, religion and origin, I will be opposed. Likewise with ADL. We must accept universal values.

In May 2013, Chomsky, along with other professors such as Professor Malcolm Levitt, advised Professor Stephen Hawking to boycott the Israeli conference.

As a result of his view of the Middle East, Chomsky has been banned from entering Israel since 2010.

View in Iraq War

Chomsky opposes the Iraq War because of what he sees as a consequence to the international system, namely that war perpetuates a system in which power and power defeat diplomacy and law. He sums up this view in Hegemony or Survival , writes:

Putting aside the crucial question of who will be responsible [Iraq post-war], those concerned with the tragedy of Iraq have three basic aims: (1) overthrow tyranny, (2) end sanctions that target people, not rulers, and (3) conserve some the resemblance of the world order. There are no disputes among worthy people on the first two goals: achieving them is an opportunity to rejoice. [...] The second goal can be achieved, and probably the first, too, without undermining the third. The Bush administration openly declared its intention to dismantle what is left of the world order system and control the world by force, with Iraq serving as a "petri dish", as the New York Times calls it, to establish a new "norm".

The look of anti-Semitism

In a 2004 interview with Jennifer Bleyer published at Ugly Planet , two editions and at Heeb Magazine , Chomsky was involved in the following exchange:

Q: Let's go back to anti-Semitism for a moment. You have written that you no longer regard anti-Semitism as a problem, at least in this country, because its relaxed institutional applications and manifestations have essentially gone. Do you still believe that?

I grew up with anti-Semitism in the United States. We are the only Jewish family in a largely Irish and German-Catholic neighborhood, which is very anti-Semitic and beautiful pro-Nazi. For a young man on the street, you have to know what that means. When my father first got a used car in the late 30s, we drove to the local mountains and passed a hotel that said "limited" meaning "no Jews". It's just part of life. When I arrived at Harvard in the 1950s, anti-Semitism was so thick that you could cut it with a knife. In fact, one of the reasons MIT is a good university is that people like Norbert Wiener can not get a job at Harvard - it's too anti-Semitic - so they come to engineering school down the street. That's anti-Semitism. Now, this is a very small problem. There is still racism, but extreme anti-Arab racism. The honorable Harvard professors wrote that the Palestinians are the ones who bleed and breed their misery to drive the Jews out to sea, and that is considered acceptable. If some of the leading Harvard professors wrote that Jews were bloody and proliferating people and advertise their misery to drive the Palestinians into the desert, the cry of anger would be enormous. When Jewish intellectuals who are considered humanist leaders say that Israel must resolve a population-deficient Galilee - which means too many Arabs, not enough Jews - are considered extraordinary. The violent anti-Arab racism is so prevalent that we do not even realize it. That's what we have to worry about. It's in theaters, commercials, everywhere. On the other hand, anti-Semitism is there, but it is very marginal.

Views

on a Cuban embargo

The behavior of international affairs resembles the Mafia. The Godfather does not tolerate insubordination, even from some small shopkeepers.

In February 2009, Chomsky described the stated US goal openly to bring "democracy to the Cuban people" as "unusual vulgar propaganda". In Chomsky's view, the US embargo against Cuba has actually achieved its stated objectives. The purpose of the embargo according to Chomsky is to implement "intensive US terror operations" and "hard economic warfare" to cause "increasing inconvenience among hungry Cubans" in the hope that because of their desperation they will overthrow the regime. In lieu of this goal, Chomsky believes that "US policy has achieved its real purpose" in causing "bitter hardship among the Cuban people, impeding economic development, and undermining steps toward internal democracy." In Chomsky's view, the real "Cuban threat" is that successful independent development on the island may stimulate others who suffer similar problems to follow the same path, causing the "US system of domination" to unravel.

Turkish suppression of Kurds

In the 1990s, Turkey's Kurdish population experienced the most brutal persecution. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, thousands of towns and villages destroyed, millions of people displaced from land and homes, with horrible wickedness and torture. The Clinton administration provided important support throughout the country, giving Turkey a lot of funds by means of destruction. In the first year of 1997, Clinton sent more weapons to Turkey than the US sent to this great ally during the entire period of the Cold War combined until the beginning of counter-insurgency operations. Turkey became the main recipient of US weapons, separate from Israel-Egypt, a separate category. Clinton provides 80% of Turkish weapons, doing his best to ensure that Turkish violence will succeed. The silence of virtual media contributes significantly to this effort.

Chomsky has been very critical of Turkish policy in terms of their Kurdish population, while also denouncing military aid given to the Turkish government by the United States. Such assistance, Chomsky said allowed Turkey during the 1990s to engage in a "US-backed terrorist campaign" in southeast Turkey, which Chomsky said was "among the most horrible crimes of the 1990s", featuring "tens of thousands of people killed "and" every imaginable form, barbaric torture. "

Criticism of the intellectual community

Chomsky is sometimes very critical of scholars and other public intellectuals; while his views sometimes put him at odds with the individual at some point, he also denounced the intellectual community for what he saw as a systemic failure. Chomsky sees two broad issues with the academic intellectual generally:

1. They mostly work as different classes, and thus differentiate themselves by using language that is not accessible to people outside the academy, with even more intentional unintended effects. In Chomsky's view there is little reason to believe that academics are more likely to engage in profound thought than other members of society and that the "intellectual" designation obscures the truth of the intellectual division of labor: "These are really funny words, I mean being an 'intellectual' has nothing to do with working with your mind, these are two different things.My suspicion is that many people in craft, automatic mechanics and so on, may do intellectual work as many people in the universities There are many fields in academia where the so-called 'scientific' work is just an administrative job, and I do not think the clerical work is more challenging than fixing a car engine - in fact, I think the opposite.... So if by 'intellectual' you mean people who use their mind, then it is whole society "( Understanding Power , p.Ã, 96).
2. The natural consequence of this argument is that the privileges enjoyed by intellectuals make them more ideological and docile than other societies: "If by 'intellectuals' you mean those who are special classes who are in business impose the mind, and framing ideas for the people in power, and telling everyone what they have to believe, and so on, well, it's different.These people are called 'intellectuals' - but they are really more a kind of secular priesthood, whose job is to upholding the doctrinal truths of society and the population should be anti-intellectual in that, I think it is a healthy reaction "(ibid, p.Ã, 96, this statement continues the previous quotation).

Chomsky elsewhere asks what the "theoretical" means he feels can be produced to provide a strong intellectual foundation for challenging hegemonic power, and he replied: "if there is a body of theory, tested and verified properly, which applies to foreign behavior or affairs the resolution of domestic or international conflicts, its existence has been kept secret ", despite many" pseudo-scientific attitudes. "Chomsky's general choice is, therefore, to use plain language in speaking with non-elite audiences.

The American Intellectual Climate is the focus of "The Responsibility of Intellectuals", an essay that established Chomsky as one of the leading political philosophers in the second half of the 20th century. Chomsky's extensive critique of the new kind of post-World War II intellectuals he witnessed appeared in the United States is the focus of his book The Power of America and New Mandarin. There he describes what he sees as a betrayal of an intellectual's duty to challenge acceptable opinions. The "new Mandarin", which he considered partly responsible in the Vietnam War, was the defender of the United States as an imperial power; he wrote that their ideology was demonstrated

the mentality of colonial civil servants, convincing the virtues of the mother country and the truth of his vision of the world order, and convinced that he understood the true interests of the underdeveloped people whose welfare he had to deal with.

Chomsky has shown cynicism towards the credibility of postmodernism and poststructuralism. In particular he criticized the Paris intellectual community; the following disclaimer can be considered as an indication: "I would not say this if I did not explicitly ask for my opinion - and if asked to support it, I would reply that I do not think it's worth the time to do it" ( ibid ). Chomsky's lack of interest arises from what he sees as a combination of difficult language and limited intellectual or "real" values, especially in the Parisian academy: "Sometimes it becomes rather funny, say in postmodern discourse, especially around Paris, being a comic strip, I mean all nonsense... they are trying to decode and see what the real meaning is behind it, things you can explain to an eight year old kid.Nothing is there. "(Chomsky on Anarchism , p. 216). This is exacerbated, in his view, by the attention given to academics by the French press: "In France if you are part of the intellectual elite and you cough, there is a front page story at Le Monde. the reason why French intellectual culture is so cute - like Hollywood "(Understanding Power, p. 96).

Chomsky made a 1971 appearance on Dutch television with Michel Foucault, the full text can be found at Foucault and its Speaker , Arnold Davidson (ed.), 1997 (ISBNÃ, 0-226-13714-7). From Foucault, Chomsky writes that:

... with considerable effort, one can extract from his writings some interesting insights and observations, stripping off the necessary obfuscation framework for honor in the strange intellectual world, which takes the extreme form in the postwar postwar culture of Paris. Foucault is unusual among Parisian intellectuals that there is at least something left when someone peels it.

Views on Sri Lankan conflict

Chomsky supports Tamil rights to self-determination in Tamil Eelam, their homeland in Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka. In an interview in February 2009, he said of the Tamil Eelam struggle: "The European part, for example, moves towards a more federal arrangement.In Spain, for example, Catalonia now has a high degree of autonomy in the Spanish state, the Basque Country also has a high degree of autonomy. In England, Wales and Scotland in England are moving towards autonomy and self-determination and I think there are similar developments throughout Europe, although they are mixed with many pros and cons, but in general I think that is a generally healthy development.I mean, people have different interests, different cultural backgrounds, different attention, and there must be special arrangements to enable them to pursue their particular interests and concerns in harmony with others. "

In September 2009 submitting the Sri Lanka Crisis Statement, Chomsky was one of several signatories calling for full access to internment camps holding Tamils, respect for international law on prisoners of war and media freedom, criticism of Tamil discrimination against the state since independence from Britain, and to urge the international community to support and facilitate a political solution that addresses the Tamil people's self-determination aspirations and the protection of the human rights of all Sri Lankans. A major offensive against Tamils ​​in the Vanni region of their homeland in 2009 resulted in the deaths of at least 20,000 Tamil civilians in five months, amid widespread concerns over war crimes committed against Tamils. At the UN forum on R2P, Responsibility for Protecting the doctrine set by the United Nations in 2005, Chomsky said:

... What is happening in Sri Lanka is the great atrocities that are taking place in Rwanda, on a different scale, where the West does not care. There are many early warnings. This [conflict] has been going on for years and decades. Many things can be done [to prevent it]. But his interest is not enough.

Chomsky responded to a question that referred to Jan Egeland, former head of the UN Humanitarian Affairs statement earlier that the R2P failed in Sri Lanka.

Views about capital punishment

Chomsky is a vocal supporter of the use of capital punishment. When asked for his opinion on the death penalty in Secret, Lies and Democracy, he states:

It's a crime. I agree with Amnesty International about it, and indeed with most of the world. The state should not be entitled to take the lives of people.

He has commented on the use of capital punishment in Texas as well as other countries. On August 26, 2011 he spoke against the execution of Steven Woods in Texas.

I think the death penalty is a crime no matter what the situation is, and that's very terrible in the case of Steven Woods. I strongly opposed the execution of Steven Woods on September 13, 2011. - Noam Chomsky

Appearance on copyright and patents

Chomsky has criticized copyright law and patent law. On copyright, he argues in an interview in 2009:

[T] here is a better way. For example, it should, in a free democratic society, a kind of responsibility arrive with a democratic decision to maintain adequate support for creative arts as we do for science. If that is done, the artists do not need copyright to survive.

On patents, he states:

If the patent regime existed in the 18th and 19th centuries and even into the early twentieth century, the United States and Britain would not be rich rich countries. They are growing substantially by what we now call piracy.

Views on M.I.T., military research and student protests

Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a major research center for US military technology. As Chomsky said: "[MIT] is a Pentagon-based university, and I'm in a military-funded lab." Having remained silent about his anti-militaristic outlook in his early years at MIT, Chomsky became more vocal as the war in Vietnam intensified. For example, in 1968, he supported efforts by MIT students to provide army desert shelters on campus. He also gave lectures on radical politics.

During this period, various MIT departments were researching helicopters, smart bombs, and counter-insurgency techniques for the war in Vietnam. Jerome Wiesner, a military scientist who initially employed Chomsky at MIT, also organized a group of researchers from MIT and elsewhere to set up mine barriers and cluster bombs between North and South Vietnam. According to his own records, in the 1950s, Wiesner had "assisted United States ballistic missile programs established before strong opposition". He then brought nuclear missile research to MIT - a job which, as Chomsky said "was developed directly on the MIT campus." Until 1965, much of this work was overseen by a Vice President at MIT, General James McCormack, who had previously played a key role in overseeing the creation of a US nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, Professor Wiesner plays an important advisory role in regulating US nuclear command and control systems.

Chomsky rarely talks about military research conducted in his own lab but the situation has been described elsewhere. In 1971, the US Army Head of Research and Development Office published a list of so-called "only examples" of "many RLE research contributions already possessing military applications". The list includes: "helical antennas", "microwave filters", "missile guides", "atomic clocks" and "communication theory". Chomsky never produced anything that actually worked for the military. But in 1963 he has become a "consultant" for the US Air Force MITER Corporation who uses his linguistic theory to build a natural language such as English 'as operational language for command and control'. According to one of his students, Barbara Partee, who also worked on the project, the military justification for this was: "that in the event of a nuclear war, the Generals will be underground with some computers trying to manage things, and that it may be more easy to teach computers to understand English rather than teaching the generals to the program. "

Chomsky's intricate attitude to MIT's military role was expressed in two letters published at the New York Review Books in 1967. At first, he wrote that he "gave little thought to... to resign from MIT, which is more than any other university related to the activities of the Department of 'Defense'. "He also stated that" MIT's involvement in the [Vietnam] war effort is tragic and untenable. " Then, in a second letter written to clarify the former, Chomsky said that "MIT as an institution has no involvement in the war effort. Individuals at MIT, as elsewhere, have direct involvement and that is what I have in mind."

In 1969, MIT student activists actively campaigned "to stop war research" at MIT. Chomsky sympathizes with the students but disagrees with their immediate goals. Contrary to a radical student, he argues that it is best to keep military research on campus rather than moving it. Against a student campaign to close all war-related research, he argues to limit such research to "a purely defensive and deterrent character system". MIT's current student president, Michael Albert, has described this position as, essentially, "preserving war research with simple amendments".

During this period, MIT had six students who were sentenced to prison, prompting Chomsky to say that MIT students suffered things that "should not happen". Nevertheless, he describes MIT as "the most free and honestest and has the best relationship between faculty and students over others... [with] a pretty good record of civil liberties." Chomsky's distinction with student activists today leads to what he calls "considerable conflict". He described the uprising across the entire US campus as "very misleading" and he was not impressed by the May 1968 student uprising in Paris, saying, "I do not pay attention to what happened in Paris as you see from what I wrote - right, I think. "On the other hand, Chomsky is also very grateful to the students for raising the war issue in Vietnam.

Chomsky's special interpretation of academic freedom made him support some of MIT's more militaristic academics, although he disagreed with their actions. For example, in 1969, when he heard that Walt Rostow, a major architect of the Vietnam war, wanted to return to work at the university, Chomsky threatened "to publicly protest" if Rostow "denies a position at MIT." In 1989, Chomsky later supported the long-standing Pentagon adviser, John Deutch, by supporting his candidacy for President MIT. Deutch was a strong supporter of nuclear and chemical weapons and later became head of the CIA. The New York Times quoted Chomsky as saying, "He has more honesty and integrity than anyone I've ever met in academic life, or any other life.... If anyone has to run the CIA, I'm glad there he is. "

Maps Political positions of Noam Chomsky

The influence of Chomsky as a political activist

Opposition to Vietnam War

Chomsky became one of the most prominent opponents of the Vietnam War in February 1967, with his essay publication "The Responsibility of Intelects" in the New York Review of Books .

Allen J. Matusow, "Vietnam War, Liberal, and LBJ Overthrow" (1984):

In 1967 the radicals were obsessed by war and frustrated by their inability to influence his course. The government is not affected by protests, people are ignorant and apathetic, and American technology is shredding Vietnam. Then, what is their responsibility? Noam Chomsky explored this issue in February 1967 at the New York Review , which has become a radical favorite journal. Based on their training and leisure time, the intellectuals have a greater responsibility than ordinary citizens for state action, Chomsky said. It is their special responsibility 'to speak the truth and reveal lies'... [Chomsky] concludes by quoting an essay written twenty years earlier by Dwight Macdonald, an essay implying that in times of crisis revealing lies may not be enough. "Only those who would refuse authority itself when the conflict is too unbearable with their personal moral code," Macdonald wrote, "only they have the right to condemn it." The Chomsky article was immediately recognized as an important intellectual event. Together with radical students, radical intellectuals move 'from protest to resistance.'

The contemporary reaction comes from Professor of Philosophy New York University Emeritus Raziel Abielson:

... Chomsky's morally vehement and strong opinion against American aggression in Vietnam and around the world is the most moving political document I have read since the death of Leon Trotsky. It inspires to see a brilliant scientist risking his prestige, his access to a lucrative government grant, and his reputation for Olympus objectivity by taking over, not-holding, the enemy's position on the moral-political issue that burned that day..

Chomsky also participated in "resistance" activities, which he described in essays and letters published in the New York Review of Books: withholding half of his income tax, took part in the 1967 parade of the Pentagon, and spent the night in prison. In the spring of 1972, Chomsky testified of the origins of the war in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by J. William Fulbright.

Chomsky's view of war was different from the orthodox anti-war opinion that regarded war as a tragic error. He argues that the war was a success from the US point of view. According to Chomsky's view, the ultimate goal of US policy is the destruction of the nationalist movement in the Vietnamese peasantry. In particular he argues that the US attack was not a South Vietnamese defense against North Korea but it started directly in the early 1960s (secret US intervention from the 1950s) and at that time largely devoted to South Vietnam. He agrees with the orthodox historian's view that the US government is worried about the possibility of a "domino effect" in Southeast Asia. At this point Chomsky diverts his opinion from orthodoxy - he argues that the US government is not so concerned with the spread of communism and state authoritarianism, but rather to a nationalist movement that would not be sufficiently subject to US economic interests.

Doubt genocide in Cambodia

The Communist Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia in April 1975 and expelled all Western citizens. The only source of information about the country is the several thousand refugees who fled to Thailand and the official statement of the Khmer Rouge (KR) government. The refugees told the story of the mass murder perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge and the widespread famine. Many academics left praising the Khmer Rouge and ignored the stories of the refugees.

In July 1978, Chomsky and his collaborator Edward S. Herman jumped into controversy. Chomsky and Herman reviewed three books on Cambodia. Two books by John Barron (and Anthony Paul) and FranÃÆ'§ois Ponchaud are based on interviews with Cambodian refugees and conclude that the Khmer Rouge has killed or been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. The third book, by pa

Source of the article : Wikipedia