Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#41

Post by throw0101a »

wheybags wrote: post #27
hguant wrote: post #17

[flagged]

Admittedly, I'm not someone who is very knowledgeable on the subject, but that is not what I got from the article at all. My read on it was that the US needs to be more diplomatic instead of forceful, and try to reach some sensible cooperation with China. That doesn't strike me as doing nothing? Also, as a non American, the "we're not special" narrative does resonate with me. American rhetoric is so often full of imp…

> My read on it was that the US needs to be more diplomatic instead of forceful, and try to reach some sensible cooperation with China.

Cooperation is useful when both actors are acting in good faith, and where both actors want something that is acceptable or tolerable to the other side.

What are the motivations and goals of the CCP? Are they tolerable to the US (and the rest of the world)? Should there be accommodation in letting them achieve those goals?

See for example:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...

Cooperation is also a two-way street: how cooperative has China/CCP been with COVID investigations?

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#42

Post by throwaway210222 »

howaboutnope wrote: post #18
rebuilder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So given that all states are based on coercive violence, how does that lead you to act?

Nice try, but I see the huge difference between something like " don't rape people, or we all agreed you should be locked up " and " don't mention the Tiananmen square massacre, or the unaccountable rulers will lock you up for endangering their power, or hurt your family if they can't punish you directly "

And somewhere in between those two is "don't be in the wrong place when we are rounding up people we don't like in a country we just invaded, else you might just spend 15 years in an island prison without charge, representation, or compensation."

Perhaps you would prefer to retry this by writing down your inalienable principles.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#43

Post by fallingfrog »

howaboutnope wrote: post #7

[flagged]

To be clear Noam Chomsky would never agree with people ruling over each other with violence; he’s an anarchist, the whole point of his philosophy is that power should always be questioned. His critique of imperialism is that it’s another form of rule by violence.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#44

Post by hestefisk »

garmaine wrote: post #23
project2501a wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky is a liberal? ever since when? > that there's no deep value the world gets from US hegemony, crumbling though it may be. Jesus effing christ, this guy actually supports US hegemony... Kissinger, is it you?

In the USA (re-)definition of the word, yes.

He refers to himself as an anarchist, first and foremost. He has what would be seen as very “liberal” as in “progressive” views in US political terms.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#46

Post by readonthegoapp »

tapgnid wrote: post #39
rapsey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I do wonder to what extent his views are based on a possibly over-optimistic view of the world's potential They definitely are. Chomsky should forever be respected for his work in linguistics, his work on the media and his research into US power. Manufacturing consent was published in 1988 and it is more relevant then ever. His personal political views are however completely unrealistic and ignore human nature…

Are you familiar with Rutger Bregman and his book Humankind? That gives a fresh perspective into humanity. One that I believe to be true. We're just too deep into the illusion of evilness, that's mandatory for status quo.

i think some very small contingent of often-extraordinarily rich and powerful -- and, therefore, comparatively-loud -- people either believe or claim to believe that humans are selfish/evil.

the fact that someone would have to write a book to countervail that claim shows the incredible power of those few people.

then again, we have folks like Steven Pinker, who - i don't know what his actual views on human nature are - but he definitely seems to be convinced that everything is getting better all the time - despite what seems to me to be at best a mixed record, and from here on out is going to be...challenging.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#47

Post by howaboutnope »

jimmyvalmer wrote: post #45
howaboutnope wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Cannot take seriously anyone who cites Origins of Totalitarianism , inarguably the most popular and overwrought political screed ever written.

Nothing of this hinges on taking me as a person seriously, at all, and that the stuff I didn't quote is hundreds of pages, and not always super exciting, is hardly an argument against what I did quote. It's just an excuse. "I could argue, but for $silly_reason I won't". Yeah no, you couldn't even if you wanted to. Prove me wrong.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#48

Post by howaboutnope »

fallingfrog wrote: post #43
howaboutnope wrote: post #7

[flagged]

To be clear Noam Chomsky would never agree with people ruling over each other with violence; he’s an anarchist, the whole point of his philosophy is that power should always be questioned. His critique of imperialism is that it’s another form of rule by violence.

I don't take issue with the criticism of American imperialism, but with the straw man that it's all just another Yellow Peril Cold War US thing, seeking issues where there is none to distract from domestic issues. Leica and Mercedes Benz are German companies, and they and others already kissed the ring. That won't do.

And then there is this:

> The future of the United States, and the world, rests on American-Chinese co-operation in a global society of genuine internationalism. But that is too obvious to require discussion.

But it does require discussion, it should be questioned, because the "Chinese" in that sentence isn't Chinese, it's the CCP. Another Orwell quote comes to mind:

> Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.

-- George Orwell, letter to Noel Willmett (1944)

There is something that is actually worse than war. Humanity survived countless wars, it would not survive global totalitarianism, be that in one bloc or several.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#49

Post by howaboutnope »

throwaway210222 wrote: post #42
howaboutnope wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice try, but I see the huge difference between something like " don't rape people, or we all agreed you should be locked up " and " don't mention the Tiananmen square massacre, or the unaccountable rulers will lock you up for endangering their power, or hurt your family if they can't punish you directly "

And somewhere in between those two is "don't be in the wrong place when we are rounding up people we don't like in a country we just invaded, else you might just spend 15 years in an island prison without charge, representation, or compensation." Perhaps you would prefer to retry this by writing down your inalienable principles.

And "retry" what? That "all states are based on coercive violence" doesn't mean Nazi Germany and modern Sweden or Finland are essentially the same, and when someone pretends that's a good argument, that even needs rebuttal, anything I reply to that will get some further sophistry in response. Might as well say considering the heat death of the universe, the outcome of all actions is the same. Technically true, but realistically not worth my time.

> And somewhere in between those two is "don't be in the wrong place when we are rounding up people we don't like in a country we just invaded, else you might just spend 15 years in an island prison without charge, representation, or compensation."

What actually matters is that "coercive violence" ALSO applies to locking up rapists. So instead of avoiding that, tell me how there is an issue with that, as if all coercion was the same, no matter the reason or context or outcome. You can bring countless examples for violent coercion in bad faith with bad outcomes in Western democracies, but I still only need that one example to refute the idea that all coercion is the same, and equally bad. This is so trivial that it shouldn't even need mentioning, and that comment I replied to doesn't even pass the smell test.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#50

Post by rvense »

wayoutthere wrote: post #31
dotsam wrote: post #20

I respect Chomsky very much, and I have learned a lot from him. But I do wonder to what extent his views are based on a possibly over-optimistic view of the world's potential, and a refusal or inability to accept that the the universe might be fundamentally unjust and that life is not always dignified or sacred. I would like to share his hopeful outlook (hopeful in the sense that he seems to think there ought to be a…

I think Chomsky is saying the opposite; that we should resist and thwart this will to dominate things in the world. It’s easy to forget he’s basically an anarcho-communist (and not in the pejorative context that label is often used, but as an intellectual school of thought). And before anyone calls it Marxism, ancom as a philosophical tradition derives from Kropotkin rather than Marx. Leftist politics in general assu…

> a philosophical tradition derives from Kropotkin rather than Marx.

Bakunin, another early anarchist, at a conference of the First Internationale in about 1870, said to Karl Marx something like "If you take the most convinced revolutionary, and give them absolute power, within a year they will be worse than the tsar himself." I think that has to qualify as one of the biggest "I told you so"s in history.

Post reply on HN