Where does he fit in Modern American history?

>sane

Why do you people exist?

He's literally an anarcho-communist.

>anarch-gommie
>sane

sure

>tfw he hasn't replied to my email yet

literally hoping it's not because he's dead

Its agency was fighting US imperialism idiot.

Soviets were imperialists though

Socialists can't be imperialists because they don't export their capital for a profit.

in theory

This is the thing about Chomsky. He is very good at identifying problems, specifically within American politics, and I think that some of his work has a lot of merit, but he is severely lacking when it comes to praxis. Even when he makes a brilliant point, he'll turn right around and discredit himself with some off base moral implication or unrealistic answer to the problem.
He's good at criticizing, bad at giving solutions

I thought it was settled that the Soviets weren't real socialists and the mass genocide they committed doesn't count against leftism

They were real socialists, they didn't commit mass genocide.

The people who died in the purges for that small period leading up to the war probably deserved it.

Has nothing to do with socialism anyway because there was no repression for like 90% of the time.

You mean the guy that denies the Cambodian and Bosnian genocides because the US government said they happened?

You know under Lenin the USSR expanded to former Russian territories that wanted to remain autonomous

Also please tell me you're a troll. This is just false

...

Didn't he deny the massacres done by Pol-pot?

Yup because the evil American government was reporting on the innocent communist country. Also this
youtube.com/watch?v=kqQz7BJA9ag

You're a retard that has no idea what "agency" means.

>Its agency was fighting US imperialism idiot.
Yeah, except when they were busy invading afganistan

I don't think he realizes he yet again claims the USSR had no agency, and was only reactionary to what the US did.

Dindus.

He was the kinda of guy who was spooked by McCain. I hesitate to say completely sane.
He's not useless though.

daily reminder that the soviet military was organised around mobile tank divisions during the cold war, almost as if they were prepared to invade europe

really makes you think huh

He's a fucking linguist

Imperialism has a definition, territorial expansion doesn't make imperialism.

At best you can claim hegemony but if you look at the actual concrete facts of the situation you see that they were expanding socialism which is perfect and good.

The repression thing is factual and I won't bother to debate it.

If you consider the Ukrainian famine a genocide you need to read actual historians rather than poets under the patronage of MI5.

They were backing a domestic revolutionary movement who asked for their insistence actually, and it was the right thing to do.

He didn't, he questioned the quality of evidence that was being used to make those claims. He never said he knew they didn't happen but rather that the conclusions being made and repeated don't meet the evidence.

>the people who died in the purges deserved it
o i am laffin

What's wrong with imperialism?

>they didn't commit mass genocide
>what is Operation Lentil

Chomsky's very Americentric and his attempts to justify all the atrocities committed by Communist countries as "Muh imperialism, the US made them do it" is cringeworthy. He's very intelligent, but his moral fagging ruins any point he tries to get across.
Also this.

>they didn't commit mass genocide.

What about the around 60 million people Solzhenitsyn argues were murdered or starved, or labored to death from 1919-1959?

Doesn't it count as genocide because it makes your feelings hurt?

His support of Hillary Clinton, pretty much the nexus of everything of everything he disparages about the American political system, made me lose all my respect for him.

Yeah, you know shit has hit the fan when even the so-called principled anarchist is talking about the lesser of two evils.

Tankie plz go

But while he never outright denied he endorsed a book written by a guy who denied the genocide as correct

I think it was a kind of "devil you know" type of situation for him.

Chomsky has preached less evilism in swing states and voting for your true candidate in non-swing states since forever.
>"Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

So he wouldn't have liked my vote for Harambe in Pennsylvania

>Candidate who's orchestrated several wars in the 3rd world and has repeatedly antagonized the Kremlin is a better choice for world peace than a candidate who's campaigned on isolationism and seeks to mend ties with the Kremlin.

So much for 'anti-imperialism' eh Chomsky?

>hates property rights
>sane

To be honest the difference in climate change stances was enough to lean towards clinton. But i expect trump's foreign policy to be at least as disastrous as that of a clinton too.

>They were backing a domestic revolutionary movement

that's a creative way of saying puppets installed by the KGB

>domestic revolutionary movement
Hwat? Do you know what the KGB is?

being a phd linguist emeritus at mit does not mean you know everything about everything noam. case in point, post-snowden chomsky speaks like he is fucking infosec genius

the one anarchist utopia chomsky always brings up is the kibbutzim, something he actually participated in, but subsequently quit. he is now literally a government employee. and don't actually ask him how his life at all reflects his own moral code, because he will just tell you, "I don't believe in public personalities." He sure as fuck will tell everyone else how to live their lives though.

>"I don't believe in public personalities."
What does that mean?

False flag faggot

He's fucking trash.

Uses lots of citations to spin a narrative, but it's normally mostly a house of cards. He ignores primary source documents and interviews with policy makers. He just creates narratives that fit his politics and then does enough citing to give his work the veneer of scholarly work.

There is a reason experts in diplomatic history don't take him seriously, even the lefties.

T. Never read anything of him

Your comment does not contain any information.

No, I was a shitty liberal in college and read exclusively him. Then I got a job in foreign affairs and saw how policy is actually made and began to read historys written by people with actual access to policymakers.

Chomsky just makes shit up. Like the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan under Clinton. He has stated numerous times, recently during his shitty email debate with Harris, that it was an intentional reprisal for AQ attacks.

Does he ever cite any sources? No. He says "think about how coincidental it kind of seems." It's Youtube tier shit. Anyone who knows dick about targeting knows you don't just pick targets overnight. Sometimes bad intel is just that, not some evil imperialist conspiracy.

I could go on. He is shit. Ever see Chomsky cited in Foreign Affairs or similar publications. Cited by IR scholars?

Didn't fucking think so. There is a reason. The fact that only lefties buy his shit and that he is so marginal to actual debates actually saves him from having his shit torn apart though.

>Then I got a job in foreign affairs

How do I do this?

Solzhenitsyn wrote literature not history.

I do IR at a British University so I've come across Noam on a few, brief, occasions

from a semi-outsider voice, I dont actually get him. What is his main point or thesis? I get a few things regarding language so at first I think he's a post-structuralist but all I see from the work that refers to him is basically parroted stuff, nothing specific just, things

from my (uninformed) perspective he appears to be a great reference for people but he doesnt actually say anything useful

what I do love is the love/hate relationship between him and Zizek

His basic thesis is

>the west doesn't notice or appreciate the negative things they do on the world stage
>mainstream western society is unwilling to apply the same standards to itself that it does to states like the USSR

Name literally one leftist expert in diplomatic history who doesn't take him seriously.

Name even one good mainstream IR scholar who considers how low quality, just fucking one.

Also this is complete bullshit because Lenin created non-existing sovereign states for the surrounding nations who then later decided to join the union.

Go to good school, learn a rare, high demand language.

I mean, he doesn't have a coherent ideology or set of policy prescriptions. It's mostly, "the U.S. and capitalist nations are bad, badder than most people think."

It's not that he doesn't make valid points, he just does so shittly. He's sloppy, and substitutes conjecture and rhetoric for actual research.

Has the U.S. interfered in other countries for its own interests? Yes. But go read Legacy of Ashes if you want actually sourced accounts of how and why the CIA fucked up. If you listen to Chomsky you just get facts fit to a narrative with little nuance.

HAHAHAHAHA

IR fags literally BTFO

>h-he uses facts and disagrees with my gay little world view

this is literally all you're saying

>i-i jjjust don't get it!

literally pretending not to understand him so you don't have to deal with what he says

B T F O
T
F
O

>go read Legacy of Ashes

Muh inept empire thoery

they fuck up so their intentions aren't evil, everything they've ever done wrong is just an accident!

you think anyone is going to believe this shit after iraq?

> "name people who called out a non-entity in a field by name"

A little difficult to do. He isn't even cited.

Samantha Powers did take time shit on one of his books in the New York Times though.

Obviously the ideas of scholars like Huntington, Fukuyama, or Mearsheimer would conflict directly with Chomsky.

But Chomsky isn't a historian or political scientist in any real sense. He's a genre writer. It's like asking "name one major historian or IR scholar who has taken time to dissect a book by Ann Coulter?"

i dont have a world view, I just dont understand the hype around him

He doesn't have a driving theory from what Ive seen, he just seems to be a commentator on everything, I havent been able to pin down why hes apparenlty such a great thinker

most of the appause i read from him comes from the social science/politics group rather than from IR authors, most of my lecturers tell me that Noam isnt someone you really need to read to understand IR theory or IR subjects like Terrorism

he's fucking encroaching my subject and I have no idea why, i want to know why

Mearsheimer and Chomsky are practically identical analysis wise, the only difference is Mearsheimer never provides an economic account - not seeming to have a view on socialism or capitalism - and doesn't care about morality or society, in his analysis.

Fukuyama and Chomsky do the exact same kind of thing, just in slightly different ways. Fukuyama made his name being an apologist for liberalism while Chomsky undermines the entire liberal order, one uses high rhetoric and the other factual historical accounts.

Face it, Chomsky is a political historian and does very shrewd analysis of specific events. His theories about the media are superior to literally everything else in the political science literature.

It's embarrassing how hard you all try to pretend he doesn't do relevant work.

blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7263

Basically, anyone doing actual history or IR work has to deal with a lot of nuance. If they spend any time working as policymakers, they realize there are lots of trade offs to make, and that uncertainty is often very high when formulating foreign policy.

So even far lefties who are serious in the field do have to allow for big moral gray areas.

Career protesters and young idealists can't abide by that sort of shit. Chomsky is smart, and can create a semi-cogent narrative that paints authorities of all stripes in a bad light.

This fits with his audiences pre-existing beliefs. I mean, Bill O'Riley writes history, although he's not as intelligent. People who are disposed to eat up his shit do.

Any close reading of Chomsky and comparison with serious diplomatic historians though finds him using a lot of cherry picking and flat out ignoring contradictory evidence.

>Any close reading of Chomsky and comparison with serious diplomatic historians though finds him using a lot of cherry picking and flat out ignoring contradictory evidence.

Okay, you made this claim.

Now substantiate it by sharing the resource/s that establish this.

It seems like a pretty simple task given you are so convinced of it so I'll take your inability to do so as evidence you're talking out of your ass.

There's good reason why IR would ignore Chomsky, he not only BTFO's them but their express goal is to make it seem like those in power and the experts they rely on have our best intentions in mind.

...

not him, but hold up

How does Chomskey BTFO IR? Thats like saying he BTFO's the study of history, or maths

IR isnt one homogeneous group of thinkers

Name one IR thinker who recognizes the evil that is the United States of America and recommends its dismantlement.

They're all apologists or at best make no comment.

In both Failed State, his 9/11 book, multiple interviews, and his exchange with Harris, he cites Human Rights Watch and other organizations stating that the Al Shifa bombing killed 10,000+

Back in 2002 Salon called him out on this. Human Rights Watch denied ever trying to figure out a casualty figure for the attack. He keeps saying it anyhow.

In Failed States he cites only Israeli court cases that take rights from Palestinians, he never mentions any that uphold them.

His entire treatment of the Iraq War basically fails to acknowledge any agency on the part of Iraqis. There is no real analysis of why things happened the way they did. Just "America did X, Y must have necessarily happened."

Let's see, he called the war against the Taliban "genocide," on multiple occasions, including in Failed States.

I mean, fuck, it's Glenn Beck tier.

By the way you dishonest hack I read that review and it doesn't give a serious treatment to a single claim, just says I don't like this or that which Chomsky said.

nytimes.com/2004/01/04/books/the-everything-explainer.html

IR scholars rarely call for the dismantlement of states so I cant show you that, IR scholars dont look at the actions of one state but state behavior in general

"evil" in itself is very subjective, and most people who study state behavior step away from those perceptions. To argue that people such as Miershimer to Wallerstein, from Nye to Waltz or Fukyama, Nkrumah to de Derian, to argue that they are all the same or have nothing to say its just retarded

from what im getting, you think the IR is basically Neo-Realists who argue that "x did nothing wrong"

Chomsky doesn't call for the US's dismantlement so I have no clue how or why you brought that up.

>misreadings are arguments
salon.com/2002/01/29/chomsky_5/

>defending israel

>doesn't recognise agency
>other people can do things therefore we aren't bad or much more powerful
guess that was completely btfo when it turned out that the US is powerful enough to destroy iraq in months - who would think that such an asymmetry of power could be the deciding factor in events?

>glen beck tier
no idea who this is

All gay apologetics.

>" He relies heavily upon quotations, but rarely identifies the speaker or writer. The endnotes supply more frustration. Bill Clinton's humanitarian rationale for the Kosovo war was ridiculed ''by leading military and political analysts'' in Israel, we are told, but the citation leads only to an earlier book by Chomsky himself. When he agrees with a claim, Chomsky introduces it with the word ''uncontroversially'' or credits it to ''distinguished authorities.'' Those who don't share his viewpoint don't simply disagree; they are the ''prevailing intellectual culture'' or the ''educated classes.'' This is a thinker far too accustomed to preaching to an uncritical choir."

Shitty citing.

"Often he meets official falsehoods with exaggerations of his own. President Clinton, he says, ''was flying Al Qaeda and Hezbollah operatives to Bosnia to support the U.S. side in the ongoing wars.'' And ''radical Islamists'' have taken over in Kosovo, leading to a ''Taliban phenomenon."

Literally caught him in an "Obama is making death camps" tier lie. Sucks to suck bruh.

>Anarchism assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.

That's talking about states in general, not the United States specifically.

...

are you fucking retarded?

this

If she doesn't show it specifically then she has yet to establish anything.
>i couldn't follow his citations so i guess he's wrong

Woman tier logic.

>Al Qaeda and US working together is far fetched

lol........

If there is something wrong with the claim he makes pick up the evidence and show how it's wrong. Otherwise you're not saying anything.

You people literally think you don't have to challenge the things you disagree with, that it is for some reason sufficient to state them.

how about 7 million ukrainians? seriously, fuck yourself and never post here again

>tfw lenin created your country

so that justifies it?

lol wut?

Mearsheimer picks events that fit his wacky offensive realism model.

But at least there is a model for why people do things.

Isn't Chomsky just "bad people are bad because they are bad. When they live in rich countries anyhow. When poor people do bad things its a reaction to rich people doing bad things. But if the rich people didn't do bad things, we'd have a world with less badness and sadness."

I mean, there is a normative theory against bad things I suppose, but not real suggestion for why things are the way they are or how to realistically improve them.

Good point? Fucking retard

you've been taught not to be able to think socialism tbqh

that's literally the entire issue here

stalin ate all the grain and paid the clouds not to rain

>be respected in linguistics
>evidence against your linguistic method becomes insurmountable
>be respected in philosophy
>a Slovenian triggers you into embarrassing yourself publicly
>the same Slovenian becomes 10x as popular as you in twenty minutes

I can't imagine how anally devastated this faggot is

as a joke

Chomsky always diverts the conversation if anyone asks him how he incorporates the things he preaches about (how everyone else should live their lives) into how he and his family actually lives. He will always say in a faggoty way (this is an exact quote), "I'm quite opposed to public personalities." Which is is a cop out considering he wants to tell everyone else how to live their lives and how evil they are. He's basically saying, "These are my well-developed philosophies about how people should live, but they don't apply to me. How dare you ask me how me and my family live or consider my life choices in developing an opinion on the way I present the world." For example should we overlook the fact that the de facto anarchist utopia that he always refers to, namely the kibbutizm, didn't work out for him and he is now an "anarchist" on government payroll. But according to chomsky this isn't relevant and anarchism is still a core value YOU should live YOUR life by. But not me, because I'm noam fucking chomsky.

>What is his main point or thesis
keep making money publishing long winded vaguely titled political book-length op-eds to poorfags and staying at nice hotels paid for by various universities around the world. mfw he probably never seen a youth hostel in 50 years.

A pseud, like most contemporary """philosophers""".