[turndown]

Intellectual giant whose shadow will be cast deep into the future. I don't need to review any of his work wrt to CS or linguistics to tell you that his legacy will be massive.

I think Manufacturing Consent should go down as one of the most important books ever written in our culture. He was right about much, but wrong about much also.

His beliefs on Cambodia strain credulity and I still have trouble separating that Chomsky, so bent on drawing an equivalence(however valid) between American actions and the Khmer Rouge that he missed the point entirely, and Chomsky the visionary philosopher who I admire deeply.

[hughesjj]

His thoughts on Serbia/Kosovo, Russia/Ukraine, likely Russia/ Georgia etc have all been problematic too.

Chomsky was illuminating in my personal character development. I grew up in a pretty conservative area, and his name carried a lot of hate like Hillary/Clinton did, but i didn't know why. Later, I saw some of his writings on American interventionism, and I found myself nodding my head in agreement over the mistakes my country/we have made. Later yet, I'm in college going for the math+cs degrees and his stuff on formal languages was probably the peak of my admiration for him... but with the admiration comes research, and perhaps the most important thing chomsky illustrated to me was that you can be a genius, but that doesn't mean you can't be blind, myopic, wrong, an asshole, or ... non-credible.

I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes, but it's been an exemplar for me regardless -- good and bad, functional and broken.

[roenxi]

> I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes

The obvious resolution to that paradox is either you don't understand Chomsky's morals or have mistaken what his beliefs are.

Judging by some random interview from 2022 [0] it looks like he has a position on Russia/Ukraine that is easy to defend. He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading. Looks like pretty standard fare for anyone who doesn't like war and propaganda.

[0] https://chomsky.info/20220408/

[hughesjj]

I was thinking more about February 2022, where he tries to blame the Ukrainian invasion on nato expansion or something

https://chomsky.info/20220204/

Oh also his georgian take https://chomsky.info/200809__2/

[phatfish]

He is still annoyed communism failed so epically. In his mind the Soviet satellites were to blame for wanting independence. It can been seen again with Ukraine, it's not that the Ukrainians are standing up for their independence, it is somehow NATOs fault.

He has made some good points about western politics from time to time. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

[slantedview]

> it is somehow NATOs fault.

NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep despite repeated promises not to, and refused to rule out expanding to Ukraine. Russia clearly called this out as a problem for years. Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

[EthanHeilman]

> it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

Unless you mean, the only way to have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been to accept Ukraine into NATO, I strongly disagree with you here.

Russia invaded Ukraine not because Russia is fearful of NATO but because Russia wished to recreate the Soviet empire. It's just plain old imperialism.

[dragonwriter]

> NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep

NATO was literally founded on the USSR's border ("Russia", as a top-level sovereign, did not exist), it had nothing to "expand up to", on either the Eastern or Western side.

> despite repeated promises not to

Assuming any such promises were made (which only one dubious alleged instance is ever pointed to, so hardly "repeatedly" in even the best case), they were personal guarantees between individual leaders of the USA and USSR, not durable binding commitments (note the absence of a treaty, executive agreement, public document or even mere joint contemporaneous oral statement of any kind) binding governments to their terms beyond the term of individual officials and heritable after the fall of one of the involved states by some successor regime.

And even had such an undocumented commitment existed and had validity, it was implicitly nullified by Russia's attempts to join NATO.

> Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

It's not clear at all that it was. For one thing, Georgia was invaded immediately after NATO complied with the Russian request in 2008 not to extend Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine, and Ukraine subsequently abandoned efforts to join NATO until after Russia invaded and purported to annex much of the country in 2014. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the cause of, rather than a response to, recent NATO expansion.

[pydry]

He was entirely right about that too.

NATO is an aggressive alliance that has exclusively invaded three countries in the last 20 years, zero of whom were threat to it.

The worst one was probably Libya, because NATO pretended to engage in a humanitarian mission to gain approval from the security council and then left the country utterly destroyed state afterwards. The country was shredded.

It's a tool of western imperialism that dangles the false promise of protection. In this respect it operates with the same logic as a gang recruiting teenagers before using them as cannon fodder.

Of course you can't say these things in polite company just as I couldn't say that WMDs were a complete load of bullshit in 2003 without being verbally attacked.

In 20 years time it will be seen as obvious, however.

[_djo_]

The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civil war before the intervention, which is why it happened, so it’s not like they went in and destabilised a stable country. Gaddafi had built Libya’s security around himself in a cult of personality, things were always going to fall apart once his power waned.

Which other countries did NATO invade?

[jcranmer]

The other NATO interventions:

* Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there.

* Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).

[pydry]

>The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC,

Yes as I pointed out.

As I pointed out that made it worse because they lied to the security. They simply wanted to take sides in a civil war.

Did you read what I wrote at all?

[M2Ys4U]

NATO's intervention in Kosovo is the one that routinely cited.

That wasn't defensive by any means, but that also doesn't make it unjustified nor should it really be called "aggressive".

Chomsky, naturally, denied that ethnic cleansing was happening there because it wasn't the US or "western" countries doing it.

[roenxi]

What do you expect him to believe? If you go in with an anti-imperialist anti-war bias, then NATO expansion is a bit of a beacon when asking questions like "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?". I don't actually remember if there is a serious counter-proposal; most people tend to rely on the theory that Putin suddenly went unhinged - which is obviously not the belief a thoughtful leftist would come to.

[_djo_]

No, the alternative liberal internationalist view is that the preservation of imperial-like spheres of influence and ironclad regional hegemonies is unfair, u democratic, and at odds with the rules-based trade-oriented order we’d like to see the world continue to adopt.

No country was forced to join NATO. In fact, it took years and years of lobbying from Eastern European countries before the first new members were allowed to join in 1999. Even then, plenty of care was taken to signal to Russia that it was strictly seen as a defensive measure, from allowing the Russian government in as an observer at all levels, to limiting the military capacity of the Baltics and putting a very low cap on the number and type of NATO assets that could be deployed in countries bordering Russia.

The intellectual mistake that Chomsky and many who share his ideas make is to believe that just because Russia might reasonably feel aggrieved at no longer being able to politically and economically dominate the countries around it through the use of military force as it could as the USSR, that it somehow has a right to have that situation reversed and is therefore justified at launching an unprovoked attack on a neighbouring democratic country to gain back that power. There should be no such right in the modern era, and believing in it is a betrayal of traditional left-wing ideals.

Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future, pulling off the same kinds of annexations and similar as it did as a young power, and when it was far less powerful than it is now.

[roenxi]

I don't disagree with any of that. But you didn't deal with the "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?" question; which is what Chomsky was picking at to get to the NATO expansion point.

> Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future

The US could act much worse in the present if it wanted. Only China is really in a position to stop them and even there only in a geographically limited area of Asia. The reason the US often doesn't bother with a might-makes-right response is because it isn't effective, not because they're purposefully holding themselves back from useful options. It is more effective to have the rule based order where, famously, the US makes the rules and gives the orders.

[foobarqux]

The same view that is held by a plethora of senior western officials such as Obama, William Burns (Former ambassador to Russia), Gates (Former Secretary of Defence), Angela Merkle, etc.

[LunaSea]

Chomsky defends imperialism as long as it's not coming from western countries.

[nayaketo]

This is the truth. He is only moral when it suits his hatred for his own country.

[KptMarchewa]

All the "anti-imperialist left" support is someone else's empire.

[racional]

He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading.

It's also a complete mindfuck of a piece, with obvious cognitive distortions and major factual evasions flying from every paragraph.

But because it's expressed in that calm, authoritative, rational (sounding) voice -- and it's coming from Saint Chomsky after all -- "principled, internationalist" lefties eat it up like candy.

I admire Chomsky for other things he's done. But he's got a split personality also, and in some cases his "morals" are very deeply flawed.

[cageface]

I grew up taking Chomsky's perspectives on the Vietnam war as gospel. After actually living there for 8 years and talking to many people about it I realized it was a lot less black and white then he paints it.

[feedforward]

The US began arming the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that means) in 1979 as well as protecting them in the UN, so the equivalence seems pretty valid to me.

Not to mention the US 1970 invasion of Cambodia and concurrent CIA-backed overthrow of the Cambodian government, which including shooting dead US students who protested against it at Kent State and Jackson State, or the US carpet bombing of Cambodia during and after Operation Freedom Deal.

[ein0p]

I recall vehemently disagreeing with Chomsky on many things when I was much younger, but then I somehow stumbled upon Howard Zinn’s “People’s history of the United States” and realized the version of history I knew was basically concentrated propaganda I was brainwashed into believing. That opened the door to understanding Chomsky. “Manufacturing consent” explains our present state of affairs really well.

[tptacek]

Zinn's reputation among historians: not all that great.

[ein0p]

Reputation of historians according to Zinn: not all that great either. Read him as a counterpoint, and food for critical thought, not as the sole source of truth. He doesn’t hide that he has an agenda.

[tptacek]

OK, but to be clear: his reputation among leftist historians, of which there are many: not all that great!

[caycep]

I did actually see him talk at a rally in Boston Common, around '04 or so. While his written stuff may well be better, what struck me was the gist was basically self promotion about how he know "secret" things from "secret" sources, but never really bothered to elaborate, only that the "US Govt is lying to you". Well yes but...I would say if one had such information, it is not well served by presenting oneself as a conspiratorial crank....

[ein0p]

Yes, US Govt is routinely lying to you. That is not controversial at all at this point. Read the book. It’s a difficult read though. Might ruffle some patriotic feathers.

Think of how difficult it is today to get even remotely truthful news. And then think about how this horseshit will be written up by government funded historians once all the political scores are settled and winners are determined

[yareal]

"People who I am critical of don't like me" is not particularly surprising, to be honest.

[hi-v-rocknroll]

I was more-or-less a free-market, atheist libertarian until about age 16 because I didn't know any better and it seemed so righteous and freedom flag-waving. Then, I learned a few things decades since then (but kept the atheism), especially about the dark origins of libertarianism. The truth is that America is a neocolonial power that flirts authoritarianism where one can live an easy life if they're moderately rich, but on the backs of a massive, struggling underclass that has it much worse than most countries in Europe. "Socialism" is a taboo word in America that it needs much more of, but the problem is that most people have too much faith in strongmen, corruption of campaign financing, and giving corporations more money, more power, and favorable regulations including regulatory capture.

[ein0p]

I’m starting to waver on atheism also. I’m not likely to start believing in god this far in my life, of course, but I now see why a lot of people feel the need to believe, and I no longer judge them for it. I do however judge religious organizations for shamelessly exploiting that need.

[karmakurtisaani]

Perhaps I could sell you the idea of ignosticism: one cannot prove anything about any supernatural beings, so the whole question of existence of gods is meaningless, and can be therefore happily be ignored. Thus, all religious questions are resolved.

Even atheism is a strong stance and asserts a belief that you cannot test!

[verticalscaler]

If you reread what you wrote carefully an amazing irony falls out.

You might consider your consent has simply been manufactured in another direction. Lots of Chomsky acolytes never quite reach that epiphany.

They simply follow in his footsteps of being oh so traumatized by the sudden realization that governments lie and propaganda is a thing that you could get them to opt in to an even deeper set of absurdities and half truths quite easily. To the great delight of the enemies of the US.

This is how you get college students to chant "Death to America".

[corimaith]

Second option bias comes to mind here, funnily enough the alt-right utilizes the same tactics.

[verticalscaler]

Indeed. Alt-right/left/whatever. Very potent tactics as you can tell even from reading this thread.

You would think people who come to these bitter realizations would know better but many inevitably land on "the ends justifies the means" or the less sophisticated "only our scum enemies lie!" and round and round we go.

[ein0p]

Actually that’s only true if you uncritically accept everything either side says and reject the other side. That’s low IQ, don’t do that.

[cm2187]

1979 was after the genocide and after Pol Pot was pushed out of power. Implying the US had something to do with the killing fields defies common sense. The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed.

Now the US did support some incompetent and corrupt militia in Cambodia to oppose the Khmer rouges, and those did their fair share of misdeeds, to the frustration of local US officers. But given the crimes the khmer rouges ended up committing, it is hard to argue that not opposing them was the morally superior position, even with hindsight.

[foobarqux]

It's like saying the war in Iraq has no effect on the current situation there.

[cm2187]

You mean like saying the US is the cause of the Shia-Sunni hatred?

[feedforward]

> The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 and China invaded Vietnam in 1979. What are you talking about?

[cm2187]

In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia, and in January 1976, Democratic Kampuchea was established. During the Cambodian genocide, the CCP was the main international patron of the Khmer Rouge, supplying "more than 15,000 military advisers" and most of its external aid.[82] It is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid to Khmer Rouge came from China, with 1975 alone seeing US$1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid and US$20 million gift, which was "the biggest aid ever given to any one country by China"

And if you read the article, north vietnam was their main backer before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#1975%E2%80%931993

[turndown]

I worded that part poorly, and did not bring up what really bothers me about it, that he tried to deny that there was a genocide in Cambodia. I agree with what you said. The idea that the US is innocent in Cambodia or really anything going on in that part of the world at that time is beyond false.

[lamontcg]

His point was always that the most inflated estimates of deaths in Cambodia were uncritically accepted by Western media and widely broadcast, while atrocities committed by friendly nations always leaned towards the very low estimates and the stories were buried.

[vintermann]

Yes, the accusation that he denied the Cambodian genocide is false, and a tactical smear.

[Aloisius]

Chomsky wrote that "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation."

I'm unsure as to how that would be anything but genocide denial.

[andrepd]

He wrote that before the truth was known, while the genocide was ongoing and the only thing we had was scattered reports of atrocities. This was the 70s, we did not exactly have telegram livestream channels from the frontlines. It was a mistake and he recanted those views in the later stages of the regime and afterwards, when the evidence became overwhelming.