US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Announcement :: Human Rights : International : Politics : Race : Social Welfare
Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
10 Feb 2006
Palestine Children's Relief: Fundraising Dinner 2006
SATURDAY 2/18/06, 6:30pm Sheraton Commander
Keynote Speaker: Noam Chomsky.
to Benifit The Palestine Children's Relief Fund (PCRF)
Palestine Children's Relief: Fundraising Dinner 2006
SATURDAY 2/18/06, 6:30pm Sheraton Commander Hotel, Harvard Sq, Cambridge. Tickets $65 (and up)

Keynote Speaker: Noam Chomsky.
The Palestine Children's Relief Fund (PCRF) a non-political, non-profit, humanitarian relief organization, which underwrites medical care for
injured Palestinian children, including bringing them to the US.
(For more information about the PCRF,
please visit: http://www.pcrf.net/first.html)


Event sponsored by: The Palestine Children's Relief Fund, Network of Arab American Professionals, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of
Massachusetts, Tufts Arab Students Organization, Islamic Society of Boston, Boston Committee for Palestinian Rights, Harvard Arab Students
Organization, and The Palestinian American Congress.

Please email Laila Kassis (lailakassis (at) naaponline.org) for additional
information, sponsorship options and to purchase tickets.
See also:
http://www.pcrf.net/first.html

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
11 Feb 2006
Chomsky is a comfortable college professor who does not orient to the working class or to trade union audiences. His specialty is that he reads the major capitalist newspapers and tells audiences full of radical/liberal college students that the capitalist press is, in the end, pro-capitalist.

For some reason this is regarded as a major accomplishment.

Chomsky is against the Cuban Revolution in particular, and against Socialism and Communist Revolutions in general He signed a widely published liberal pro-capitalist petition against government repression in Cuba, and he was not talking about the smiling US torture center in Gitmo.

I sat through a rambling Chomsky speech on Cuba - he never mentioned Castro once. The audience was basically half US Communist party supporters, and Socialist Workers Party supporters. Both groups uncritically hail the Stalinist/Fidelistas who mislead the Cuban Revolution, but none of them did anything but clap. After all, “Chomsky’s brilliant.” When a real leftist stood up to comment about Castro and the defense of the Cuban Revolution, Chomsky and the organizers cut him off. Only respectful “questions” were allowed at the “Forum,” no “comments” allowed. Were Chomsky speaks, “that is what democracy looks like.”


Noam Chomsky calls himself an “anarchist.” He advocated “voting against Bush.” The master of linguistics was smart enough not to say “Vote for Kerry.” He danced around that phrase. But that’s what he meant.

In the leafy upper middle class “anarchist” stronghold of Lexington, MA, where Chomsky lives in a house worth more than a million dollars, he voted for a tax increase to “On local issues I almost always vote. For example, there was recently a referendum in the town where I live that overrode ridiculous tax restrictions, and I voted on that. I thought it is important for a town to have schools, fire stations, libraries and so on and so forth. Usually the local elections make some kind of difference, beyond that it is… If this state (Massachusetts) were a swing state, I would vote against Bush.” (From an inerview on Znet ) Of course he leaves out the one of the biggest uses of local taxes, the police. And he, along with a lot of other “leftist” like Anarchist Michael Moore, backed Kerry who was more pro-Israel than Bush.

It is good for Palestinians, especially children, to get some relief from the depredations of Israeli repression, but don’t go to Chomsky’s speech expecting to hear competing views encouraged or the professors views challenged. He will just tell you what he’s read in the newspaper in a long rambling poorly organized presentation that ultimately has no point. He just wants US Imperialism “with a human face.” SEE http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
11 Feb 2006
Hey, maybe Chomsky could get some donations from the PA and Suha Arafat.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
11 Feb 2006
Liam, I was also at the Chomsky talk on wen. Your version of the story is a little off. The ex-cuban counter revolutionary was allowed apmple time to talk and then chomsky agreed with most of his points. You also seem to contradict yourself when stating that Chomsky is against Castro, but then he would not let an anti Castro point of view be heard. Makes no sense, and it was not that way.

There are huge problems with the Castro regime that most Socialists and communists are very critical of. Like the anti-gay stance of Castro, the detaining of dissidents etc. Again you make a huge contradiction when you attack chomsky's talk on wen. Chomsky cited numourous human rights reports that placed most latin american countries as worse human rights violators than Cuba. Did you not hear that part?

Chomsky said people should vote for bush in swing states (he didn't even say that he said they should think hard about voting for bush), which MASS is not. I also dissagree with this strategy.

You must not know much about chomsky to even attempt to attack him as pro-Isreal. Come on.

As for taxes, I think most lefties would say that people who live in affluent areas should vote for higher taxes. What's the problem there? What is the problem with cops? So you don't like the police union?

As for US imperialism, he was fighting US imperialism long before you or I.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
11 Feb 2006
Where to begin...

While the "Globe" and the "Herald" call the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association a "union," and anachists showed up to support the Cop's picket line outside the Democratic Nat'l Convention wrkers pro-working class people understand that when the police show up at a Labor Union jpicket line they are their to enforce the Capitalist owners interests. Cops protect scabs, not striking uionized workers. That's why in labor circles it is said that their is more education in being hit with a policeman's club, than there is in four years of college. You learn where the power of the state comes from. This has nothing to do with "hating" the police. It is an attempt to see reality as it is.

When Chomsky advocated voting for Kerry, he was backing the candidate with more of a pro-Israel record. So what do all of Chomsky's speeches about the wrongs of Israels oppresion of the Palestinians come down to - he backs the more pro-Israel canndidate.? I need Winston Smith to explain the double think their.

As to the speach I saw at the Old South Church, the questioner was a defender of the Cuban revolution, not a right wing gusano. I wrote that he was a real leftist. Castro is a Stalinist. Real leftists don't support Stalinists. That's why Workers World Party never talks about their support for Stalinists from the many demonstration platforms they have controlled. Castro is an incompetent Stalinist who never allowed workers democracy in Cuba, not even in the begining of the Revolution.

Taxes? What kind of "anarchist" is in favor of paying taxes to the Capitalist State? This is the stance of a pro-capitalist liberal. But calling yourself a "Liberal" isn't very "cool," even in liberal/leftist circles. So left liberals like to dress up as Radical Anarchists. Can anyone quote some of the Classical Anarchists who supported paying taxes?
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
11 Feb 2006
Who ever said I was an anarchist? Who ever said I was a liberal?

You have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about socialists. You sound like my conservative high school teacher, "all socialists are stalinist totalitarians. Read a bit. Castro is a dick. A true stalinist. That does not mean that everything in cuba is shit. They still have many advantages over the capitalist, US puppet rigimes in latin america.

As for Israel, one can be pro-palestinian and pro-israel. To claim otherwise is to validate the argument ov the Zionists. It is not an either or situation. Nation-states are stupid and there is no reason why jews and palastinians cannot live in the region. Unless you don't beleve that humans can live together?

And for the record, I don't think anarchism is very radical, more like utopian nonesense, but I get along with um.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
11 Feb 2006
Who ever said I was an anarchist? Who ever said I was a liberal?

You have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about socialists. You sound like my conservative high school teacher, "all socialists are stalinist totalitarians. Read a bit. Castro is a dick. A true stalinist. That does not mean that everything in cuba is shit. They still have many advantages over the capitalist, US puppet rigimes in latin america.

As for Israel, one can be pro-palestinian and pro-israel. To claim otherwise is to validate the argument ov the Zionists. It is not an either or situation. Nation-states are stupid and there is no reason why jews and palastinians cannot live in the region. Unless you don't beleve that humans can live together?

And for the record, I don't think anarchism is very radical, more like utopian nonesense, but I get along with um.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palestinian Children
11 Feb 2006
The topic here is Noam Chomsky. I adress his ideas and some of yours. I know nothing about you, Chomsky is the one who claims to be an "anarchist."

Here's a quote from this "fighter against imperialism" who talks out of the left side of his mouth sometime, "Noam Chomsky] The United States, to its credit, is a very free country, maybe the freest country in the world in many respects. One result of that is that we have extremely rich internal documentation. We have a rich record of high level planning documents which tell us the answer to your question. And that’s an achievement of American democracy. However, almost nobody knows about it and that is a failure of democracy."

He thinks Capitalist Imperialism is a bad policy that can be changed throught public pressure and speeches in front of polite audiences. The Globe publishes op-ed pieces by him every once in a while (usually in Saturday's edition- lower readership). He's the comfortable "old Uncle Lefty" reading the small articles in the back of the paper and complaining harmlessly before he troops off to vote for the Democrats...
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
12 Feb 2006
I wouldn't say hes harmless. There are a lot of leftists that got their start reading chomsky, sure he is a bit simplistic in his analysis and offers no guidance for the future, but he does get ideas out there. He also will be raising a shit load of money for palastinians on saturday, how much have you raised?
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
12 Feb 2006
Noam Chomsky is past his useful life as an activist/radical. He is dangerously outdated in his thinking, as evidenced by his ignorance or reluctance to accept the truth of the wtc demolition. Why, he probably hasn't even heard of Loose Change--except for the pennies he's raising for Palestinian children to buy splints, bandages, and coffins.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+cha
to liam
12 Feb 2006
liam, there is nothing wrong with voting for tax increases in one's own town. in my town, our school were falling to shit, and we had all sorts of programs cut, and it would have gotten worse if a group of people hadn't campaigned,for, and won, a tax increase. it saved our schools, it re-opened a firehouse, and unfortunately, it did fund police, but it's a trade-off that i think is ok.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
12 Feb 2006
the other issue is, in today's world, especially in the united states, anarchism is not posible. therefore, it is sheer stupidity for anarchists to pursue that and not support things that will benefit people, even if it is not anarchism. i am an anarchist and i support tax increases that help schools and such. unfortunately, many of these taxes go to the wrong places, but at leats it's a start.
Re Chomsky's Backing for CIA 'Asset' Chalabi
12 Feb 2006
Chomsky and the CIA “asset.”

Ahmed Chalabi, who was the CIA backed head of the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress (INC) and a U.S.-educated banker who fled Jordan years ago to evade a conviction for bank fraud.

Chalabi’s American champions extend far beyond the right wing of the Bush administration. His INC was the chief beneficiary of the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton in 1998. Another longtime booster of Chalabi is self-styled “anarchist” Noam Chomsky, who has promoted Chalabi and the Iraqi “opposition” for over a decade. There has also speculation in the Media/Press that Chalabi is close to the CIA.


In the buildup to the 1991 Gulf War, Chomsky pushed as an “alternative” to war “the peaceful means prescribed by international law: sanctions and diplomacy” (Z Magazine, February 1991). Another “alternative” Chomsky promoted was Chalabi’s “democratic opposition,” lecturing that the media “have scrupulously avoided the Iraqi democratic forces” because “they are again calling for democracy in Iraq while Washington seeks to install some clone of Saddam Hussein” (Lies of Our Times, September 1991). Two years later, Chomsky complained that “the US always dismissed the Iraqi democratic opposition with disdain, including its most conservative elements, such as London-based banker Ahmed Chalabi” (Z Magazine, May 1993).
Only months before the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, Chomsky again talked about how the Chalabi opposition had been an “alternative” to war in 1991, again complaining of the U.S.: “Regional opposition was regarded as a problem to be evaded, not a factor to be taken into account, any more than international law” (Z Magazine, April 1998). Even after Chalabi rode into Baghdad with American troops earlier this month, Chomsky said approvingly, “The US-backed opposition demands that the UN play a vital role in post-war Iraq and rejects US control of reconstruction or government” (ZNet, 13 April).

So Chomsky, the “anti-Imperialist fighter,” admires and promotes the same people as the CIA. Chomsky backed the 'sanctions' that some have reported led to the deaths of a million people. With a 'loyal' opposition like this no wonder the US Imperialists think they can invade anywhere, and kill as many people as they like. They have their left flank covered.

I guess that’s why Chomsky only allows ‘questions’ and not comments at his ‘forums,’ and must be introduce as being “brilliant.”
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
12 Feb 2006
Dude, where did you cut and past that from? Antichomsky.com or hurowitz.com?
Re:Chomsky
12 Feb 2006
Since I am pointing out Chompsky's own words in support of a CIA asset, and Chomsky's own words in support of sanctions on Iraq.....I get the info from Chompsky's archives......you can read them yourself, read them critically, and don't let his supposed "brilliance" blind you to what he says....He thinks "Imperialism" is a bad policy that can be change by appealing to the intellectual class a colleges and universities.....His own words show him for what he is. If this is the sum of his work “fighting US imperialism,” when push comes to shove, he is just another Democratic Party supporter. He votes for the ‘lesser evil.’ All of his “fighting” by the way is just words and writing. He talks and he writes. This used to be called “a parlour pink,” or “an armchair socialist.” But socialism is out of style now, so now Chomsky is a self proclaimed "anarchist." See his words yourself....http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
12 Feb 2006
Imperialism can only be overcome by appealing to every level, intelectual to workers. Chomsky deals with the people in his realm, ie academia. I don't think many factory workers are going to let chomsky tell them how things are. The fact that sometimes he uses examples of people who are captialist pigs does not mean he is a captialist pig. You can pick and choose spicific quotes all you want, but if you ask ten people what chomsky is arguing for you will get a pretty radical anti-imperialist critique of captialism. That is what comes out of the totality of his work. Specific quotes taken out of context to not discredit his large volumn of social advocacy.

As I said earlier, his audiance is the rich middle class colege kid who has been sheltered his whole life. He is able to open these people up to other ideas. This is more radical than you think. It is very rare.

As for his political philosophy, when did he ever say he was an anarchist? I've never read it, in fact I have heard him say that he is spicifically not an anarchist but what he called "a fellow traveler".

I asked you where you cut and pasted that from because you claimed that we invaded Iraq last month.

P.s. Anarchism was cool in '98. Socialism and Marxism is where it is at now, IMO.
Re:Chomsky Supported Kerry and Democrats
12 Feb 2006
FIGHT CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM - WITH IMPERIALISTS?

During the 2004 Election, supposed "anarchist" and virulent anti-communist Noam Chomsky was bitten by the anybody-but-Bush bug. He signed on to a document called "Bush Can Be Stopped: A Letter to the Left," which stated that "Traditional debates on the left about the value of electoral politics and the lesser evil pale in light of the need to defeat Bush and his congressional accomplices."

Funnily enough, the words Democratic Party don't actually appear anywhere in the letter, but the conclusion one should draw is clear.

The Progressive (January 2004) (http://progressive.org/mag_jan04) published a speech liberal academic Howard Zinn wrote for whoever ended up being the Democratic presidential candidate, which tells you who Zinn voted for.

The speech promised a whole range of reforms and pledged to change U.S. foreign policy to that of a "peaceful nation, always ready to defend ourselves, but not sending our troops and planes all over the world for the benefit of the oil interests and the other great corporations that profit from war."

In that small sentence Zinn obliterates any real understanding of imperialism, and perpetuates the myth, as does the whole speech, that capitalism can be reformed to serve the interests of working people and the oppressed rather than those of the rapacious capitalist class.

Imperialism is not a policy that the capitalists can choose to employ one day, and not the other—it is a system that will only end with the uprooting of capitalism, and its replacement with a planned and collectivized economy of production for human need and want, rather than profit.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
12 Feb 2006
I would not dispute anything you just said.
Re Chomsky for Palestinian Children
12 Feb 2006
FIGHT CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM - WITH IMPERIALISTS

The Bush cabal has circulated an anti-Cuban petition to defend paid agents of the US/CIA who are arrested. The State Department calls their agents “dissidents.”

So does Chomsky….

For those “leftist” intellectuals who were squeamish about signing such an outright statement of support to the Bush regime, another petition was circulated by the social-democratic Campaign for Peace and Democracy, which was signed by such notables as Howard Zinn, Cornel West and that all-purpose anti-communist Noam Chomsky.

While mouthing some criticisms of U.S. policy toward Cuba (and Iraq), the statement asserts, “We support civil liberties and democratic rights everywhere, regardless of the country’s economic, political or social system.... We support democracy in Cuba.

The imprisonment of people for attempting to exercise their rights of free expression is outrageous and unacceptable.”

Exposing what this bleating for “democracy” in Cuba is all about, leftist intellectual James Petras wrote in Socialist Viewpoint (May 2003): http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/may_03/may_03_1.html

“Living in the least politicized nation in the world with one of the most servile and corrupt trade union apparatuses in the West, with virtually no practical political influence outside a few university towns, the practical intellectuals in the U.S. have no practical knowledge or experience of the everyday threats and violence which hangs over revolutionary governments and activists in Latin America.

Their political conceptions, the yardsticks they pull out to condemn or approve of any political activity, exists nowhere except in their heads, in their congenial, progressive, university settings where they enjoy all the privileges of capitalist freedom and none of the risks which Third World revolutionaries have to defend themselves against..”

“The principal author and promoter of the anti-Cuban declaration in the United States (signed by Chomsky, Zinn and Wallerstein) was Joanne Landy, a self-declared ‘democratic socialist,’ and lifelong advocate of the violent overthrow of the Cuban government—for the past 40 years.

She is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), one of the major institutions advising the U.S. government on imperial policies for over a half century....

“It is no surprise that the statement authored by this chameleon right-wing extremist contained no mention of Cuba’s social accomplishments and opposition to imperialism.

For the record, it should be noted, that Landy was a visceral opponent of the Chinese, Vietnamese and other social revolutions in her climb to positions of influence in the CFR.”
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
12 Feb 2006
wait hurowitz.com? what is that supposed to mean?
Re:Chomsky
13 Feb 2006
The reference to horowitz .com means the web site of the infamous David Horowitz (http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp) a man who considered himself a leftist in the 70’s and worked with the Black Panthers. His experiences supporting Maoist, and Stalinists caused him to ‘flip side’ and become a Right Wing propagandist.

Some believe that Chomsky can not be criticized by a leftists. Only right wingers are allowed to criticize. Many of the criticisms of Chomsky available on the Internet are little more than conservative rants.

Why are so many people progressive, leftists persuaded by Chomsky's arguments? In large measure, this is because Chomsky is undeniably skilled. As propagandists go, he is skillful and persuasive... or at least, persuasive to people whose only knowledge of the topic at hand comes from Chomsky himself.

Chomsky understands a critical axiom of sophistry: it's far better to mislead than to lie. Obfuscation is the propagandist's best friend. A skilled propagandist will not say, especially to a college educated audience, “This is the truth, and you’d better believe it.”

Better to carefully arrange a set of facts that support your thesis. And never forget the value of a good disclaimer: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies..."

Naturally, Chomsky himself has spent a great deal of time considering the nature of propaganda. In an article entitled "Propaganda, American-style," he outlines his theory on how propaganda functions in a democracy:

"In totalitarian societies where there's a Ministry of Truth, propaganda doesn't really try to control your thoughts. It just gives you the party line. It says, 'Here's the official doctrine; don't disobey and you won't get in trouble.

What you think is not of great importance to anyone. If you get out of line we'll do something to you because we have force.' Democratic societies can't work like that, because the state is much more limited in its capacity to control behavior by force.

Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says -- in other words, control what people think. One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins.

You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions -- and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible."http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&s=chomsky20011001.

Now consider Chomsky's reaction to Christopher Hitchens, after Hitchens argued against any attempt to rationalize the September 11 attacks. Chomsky responded by claiming that "Hitchens cannot mean what he writes... We can therefore disregard it... Since Hitchens evidently does not take what he is writing seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The fair and sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration..."

In other words, Hitchens was not accepting the necessary assumptions; debate, therefore was not permissible, and Hitchens' remarks could be dismissed as an "aberration."

This is one of Chomsky's frequent tactics when confronted with a reasonable person who is saying things that Chomsky would rather not acknowledge: they are simply saying something that they don't mean, or don't believe.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
13 Feb 2006
Liam I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Is it that anyone to the right of you should be dissmissed? Or is it that Chomsky is effective and therefore needs to be attacked? What good does it do for leftists to shoot at each other over petty differences? Maybe you don't think that they are petty? As I said before, I don't understand why you would not want Chomsky to raise money for palistinian children?
Re:Chomsky and Open Debate
13 Feb 2006
I am not shooting at anybody.

Chomsky is presented as a person who speaks out against US Imperialism. Before Stalin and his co-thinkers gained control of the Soviet Union it was considered normal in left wing circles around the world to have vigorous debate.

Some people believe in a “family of the left’’ were no one is aloud to say anything unkind about another person or group on the left. Is that what a left wing democracy looks like?

Chomsky is a public person. He puts his views out in numerous channels. He should expect evaluation, and criticism. This is not a personal attack on him in any way. Debate helps people understand views and sharpens them.

Leftist democracy, workers democracy is a good thing.

It was Stalin and his ilk who started the idea that any criticism of left wing or socialist leaders was an attack on all progressives. The danger from the right was so great that we couldn’t afford open debate, or conflicting views
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
13 Feb 2006
'cept stalin wasn't progressive at all. he was one of the most REgressive people in history.
Re:Chomsky and Cambodian Holocaust
13 Feb 2006
Genocide and So On

In 1977, in the middle of the Cambodian Holocaust Chomsky “bravely” wrote an article for “The Nation”( http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm) challenging the ‘conventional’ wisdom that hundreds of thousands of people were dying in Cambodia.

With his usual “brilliance” Chomsky proved that there was no “reliable” evidence that hundreds of thousands of people were dying under the rule of the incompetent, brutal, irrational Maoist/Stalinists of the Khmer Krahom (Rouge).

Even after the Vietnamese Stalinists liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge in 1978-9 Chomsky “brilliantly” proved that reports of maybe 1,000,000 dead were exaggerations generated by Soviet/Vietnamese propaganda. When the Khmer Rouge first took power and bizarre executions were reported Chomsky compared the killing to excessive acts during the French Revolution.

Later, the evidence was so overwhelming that Chomsky had to change his position. Of course he NEVER admits to making a mistake. Why should he when everyone around him keeps telling him he is “brilliant.”

The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend. His critics frequently extract a handful of quotes from "Distortions at Fourth Hand" or After the Cataclysm and suggest that Chomsky was an enthusiastic advocate for the Cambodian Maoist/Stalinists. His defenders, meanwhile, limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the overall theme of his articles.

There is something vaguely unsettling in Chomsky's words, even as he acknowledges the horrible toll of the Cambodian Maoist/Stalinists: There was an atrocity, people were outraged, “so on and so forth”…(one of the “brilliant” linguists favorite phrases, by the way).

The reaction is Chomsky's primary concern; genocide itself is a lesser point.

If Chomsky was initially skeptical of the reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities, he was certainly not alone. Given that he now acknowledges the brutality of the Khmer Rouge regime, is it fair to continue to criticize him?

In spite of these omissions, Chomsky's faith in his propaganda model remains intact. Assessing their own work in hindsight, Chomsky claim that their Nation article was entirely accurate.

"The conclusions drawn there remain valid. To our knowledge, no error or even misleading statement or omission has been found."

They go on to describe that article as a "study that denounced Khmer Rouge atrocities," a description that will surely seem surreal to anyone who actually read it.( Manufacturing Consent, pp. 281-282)

Discussing criticisms of the piece, Chomsky wrote that:

"In that article we were clear and explicit, as also subsequently, that refugee reports left no doubt that the record of Khmer Rouge atrocities was 'substantial and often gruesome,' and that 'in the case of Cambodia, there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees.'"( Manufacturing Consent, pp. 293 )

The Nation article, however, says no such thing. The quotes Chomsky are NOT from that article. They are from After the Cataclysm, which was published after the fall of the Pol Pot regime.

There is no "clear and explicit" acknowledgement of "major atrocities and oppression" in the 1977 article, and Chomsky's later attempts to persuade readers otherwise seem deliberately dishonest.

To read a well documented article about Chomsky’s Cambodian Holocaust denial see http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
Liam
13 Feb 2006
While you certainly have raised an important (and probably the most valid criticism) of Chomsky's past work, I'm still at a loss. Are you one of those extremists who always throws the baby out with the bathwater? Because, if so, you're going to wake up one day and find you don't have any children left.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
14 Feb 2006
You guys are right! He /is/ pretty rich for an egalatarian.

Him & Michael Moore.
Noam was amazing!
14 Feb 2006
Noam_at_Sheraton_Commander_Boston.jpg
Noam Chomsky: One Rich Egalatarian
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
14 Feb 2006
You guys act like he is war profiteering or trading slaves. As Noah said, would you perfer he did not speak out? Would it be better if he spent his free time day trading? I agree with Liam that debate is good for the movement, but it should not be personal attacks. Why shoot the messenger, why not have a discussion based on your concerns over the topics you claim Chomsky to be weak on.
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
14 Feb 2006
Once again, it's rather sad to see yet another Indymedia site that allows all of this trollbait to be posted. I'm not referring here to Liam, who has some kind of axe to grind against Chomsky, but to the other troll comments. A disclaimer that says "don't feed the trolls" doesn't cut it folks. Indymedia is the people's media and if you allow our enemies to post to this website, you might as well find somebody else to run this website.

Noam Chomsky is an anarchist. AK Press has a new book out about his anarchism and I'm publishing an anarchist anthology which will include Chomsky.
Re: Chuck Munson - Ideological diversity oppressor
14 Feb 2006
<blockquote><b>Indymedia is the people's media and if you allow our enemies to post to this website, you might as well find somebody else to run this website.</b></blockquote> Oh, that is <u>so</u> telling! Yes, that's the perfect statement of all the criticisms against movements that claim to be for "the people". You've just made it very clear that the only "people" you're concerned about are the ones who agree with you. What a hypocrite. <br><br> What are you working to create here? A site full of back-patters? Isn't the interaction of ideas from all different perspectives valuable to you; or would you prefer just to ignore those who don't see things your way -- the way the pro-democracy crowd ignores the minorities its politics oppress, "for the good of the people". (Clearly "the people" are those in the big group; those with the power. The others -- the minority -- aren't people at all to you, are they?) Homogenization of thought; suppression of diversity -- that's what you seem to be all about. Duko
Anthology on Anarchy
14 Feb 2006
Chuck,

Would you consider using my illustration in your book? I have several others that I'm working on for all the major egalatarian millionaires: Ralph Nader, Richard Gere, Michael Moore. Just let me know, though, and I'll polish Noam up for you.

Good luck with the anthology!

Gail
Chuck!
14 Feb 2006
<b>Chuck!</b> <br><br> Hey brother! I'm glad I found you here. Listen, I'd posted this really nice reply to your denial of the existence of anarcho-capitalism on the <a href="http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/10665/index.php">Kansas City site</a>...but you never responded. <br><br> Remember? <blockquote>Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism requires the existence of the state, whereas anarchism is a system that exists instead of the state...Anarcho-capitalism was debunked 10 years ago by the <a href=" http://infoshop.org/faq/append11.html#app5">[infoshop.org] FAQ</a>. It's really strange that there are still people around who are confused...This is basic political theory, which you should have learned in high school.</blockquote> Actually, they don't usually teach political theory in public high schools. But anyway, I read over <a href=" http://infoshop.org/faq/append11.html#app5">that faq thingey</a> you pointed me to -- seems very strange that you would cite infoshop.org as some kind of academic authority that everybody should have read by now; or that you would give them credit for debunking 100 years of anarcho-capitalist thought in their short little faq, but that's cool.<br><br>Basically, the infoshop argument sez: <blockquote>Never mind what the word “anarchy” <u>means</u>-- anarchy is necessarily anti-capitalist because anarchists have historically been anti-capitalist</blockquote> I may not have learned my anarchist political theory in high school, but even I know a basic logical fallacy when I see one. I mean, c'mon, "It is because it always has been"?! That one could justify the denial of the equal rights of women, or slavery, or...well, all kinds of ridiculous stuff! <br><br>Take a look back at the KC site when you get time & read over <a href="http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/10665/index.php">my reply</a>. (It’s about 2/5 of the way down the page right now.) I'd be very interested in hearing what you think. (*And I know it's better than all that silly infoshop junk you've been reading!)<br><br>Anxiously awaiting,<br><br>sh(A)ne<br>The non-existent under-educated anarcho-capitalist
OOPs! Try that again --- "Chuck!"
14 Feb 2006
Chuck!

Hey brother! I'm glad I found you here. Listen, I'd posted this really nice reply to your denial of the existence of anarcho-capitalism on the Kansas City site...but you never responded.

http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/10665/index.php

Remember?

>>"Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism requires the existence of the state, whereas anarchism is a system that exists instead of the state...Anarcho-capitalism was debunked 10 years ago by the [infoshop.org] FAQ. [linked here: http://infoshop.org/faq/append11.html#app5] It's really strange that there are still people around who are confused...This is basic political theory, which you should have learned in high school."<<

Actually, they don't usually teach political theory in public high schools. But anyway, I read over that faq thingey you pointed me to -- seems very strange that you would cite infoshop.org as some kind of academic authority that everybody should have read by now; or that you would give them credit for debunking 100 years of anarcho-capitalist thought in their little faq, but that's cool.

Basically, the infoshop argument sez:

"Never mind what the word “anarchy” means -- anarchy is necessarily anti-capitalist because anarchists have historically been anti-capitalist"

I may not have learned my anarchist political theory in high school, but even I know a basic logical fallacy when I see one! I mean, c'mon, "It is because it always has been"?! That one could justify the denial of the equal rights of women, or slavery, or...well, all kinds of ridiculous stuff!

Take a look back at the KC site when you get time & read over my reply. (It’s about 2/5 of the way down the page, which I've linked to below.) I'd be very interested in hearing what you think. (*And I know it's better than all that silly infoshop junk you've been reading!)

Anxiously awaiting,

sh(A)ne
The non-existent under-educated anarcho-capitalist

Link to your post & my reply:
<a href="http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/10665/index.php";>

Link to the infoshop.org faq you referenced:
http://infoshop.org/faq/append11.html#app5
Hey Boston IMC Webmaster collective!
14 Feb 2006
It looks like I'm not the only one who's having trouble with the "HTML Formatted" selection in the Text Format dropdown box.

I thought that maybe I just switched the selector when I rolled my mouse wheel or something (I _know_ I set it initially), but it there've been two HTML formatted posts that have come up plain text in the last two days on this thread. Seems kind'a strange.

Just thought I'd mention it.

sh(A)ne
Christ, Munson!
15 Feb 2006
Damn, Munson: So you want to ignore all the people you don't agree with, AND hide what they have to say from the rest of us. That's some scary shit.

You some kind of dictator in training?

Sr. Barasmain'a
Re Chomsky - "Give War A Chance"
15 Feb 2006
During the Clinton administration, Chomsky supported US military intervention in Haiti in 1994, and again in the Balkans in late 1995, following the Dayton Accords.

Chomsky claimed that American military action in Haiti would “probably cut the terror” and that the alternative to US intervention in the former Yugoslavia was for the two sides to “keep massacring one another.”

His touching faith in the altruistic motives and actions of the US military machine are not unusual in this society, but to have him continually held up as a “brilliant” fighter against imperialism? It just does not make sense…

Haiti is in the news today with crowds in the street protesting against the US and their allies in Haiti trying to steal another election.

One need only look at nearby Cuba to see the difference a Communist Revolution would make in Haiti. Cuba has free education, free medical care, and a feeling of defiant dignity in the face of US Imperialisms war time embargo.

Haiti is the only country in the world to have a successful slave rebellion. But two hundred years of racist capitalism has left the country one of the poorest in the world. Non-capitalist North Korea has a higher standard of living than Haiti.

The Haitian working class in the Eastern US and Canada have the ability to influence the developments back home in Haiti. The organized working class in Haiti, with links to the North, must organize a Leninist party that is prepared to run society, and repel the Imperialists. US Hands Off Haiti….
Re: Fundraiser w Noam Chomsky for Palistinian Children
15 Feb 2006
http://www.pmw.org.il/Latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#b160106
Chuck Munson?! That guy's fucked up.
16 Feb 2006
I think he's the one who was trying to get some KC indymedia writer to meet him for a fight or something. There were big signs, and a rubber chicken involved, as I recall.

Sam