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

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#91

Post by howaboutnope »

rebuilder wrote: post #60
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 "

Ok, so maybe the original position you presented need to be qualified somehow, because as it was written, it sounds like you would be opposed to all coercion and feel personally responsible for stopping it, somehow. I was curious about that somehow part, that’s all.

I oppose ruling via violence and murder. And generally, I think coercion needs to be justified, and often can be. When a child runs into a busy street, and yelling "stop" doesn't suffice, then you grab that child to keep it from run over. That's coercion, and perfectly fine in my books. As are taxes (as a general idea, of course the corrupt ways they're often spent aren't), and many other things.

And I know I am personally responsible, feeling doesn't enter into it. I'm not religious, and nobody can take the responsibility of judging and acting from me. There is nobody to hide behind, nobody to take orders from. The buck stops with me just like it stops with you.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#92

Post by oblio »

jollybean wrote: post #76
oblio wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere that it's not entirely unlikely that the brand of socialism/communism in the Soviet Union became more extreme because of foreign attack. Socialism was considered, probably rightly so, a mortal threat to current political and social systems so the communist camp in Russia was under assault from day 1. For those that forgot, Russia was an ally in WW1 and once it withdrew from the war due to huge war fa…

Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union. They was also an 'ally' in WW2, I think 'enemy of my enemy' would be a more apt term. The Soviets were an authoritarian mass murdering regime (Stalin murdered 4-5 million on purpose in Ukraine, but that's just one small item on the list) that already ruthlessly ruled much of Central Asia, and the only reason the Czechs, E. Germans, Poles…

> Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union.

We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the *birth* of the Soviet Union.

Imperial Russia, no matter what you may think of its morals, was an ally of the Western powers. It fought together with them, it was completely exhausted by the war, it collapsed. Immediately after its collapse, the Western powers, acting very much like hyenas (US, UK, France, Japan, etc), invaded their former ally.

The new Russian factions fought each other and fought off the invaders.

How do you look internal politics look in a country in such a situation? Do you think moderates have any chance? When your former allies are betraying you, your country was ravaged by war and is now in a civil war?

The hypothesis was that we will never know for sure if Russia wouldn't have gotten a more moderate socialist government without foreign invasion. It's an "what if" scenario.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#93

Post by raxxorrax »

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 don't buy this honestly. Even when nobody can live up to utopian expectations, to better yourself you might want to strive for more.

We heard about necessity of mass online surveillance and prisons outside of the rule of law. All because they are allegedly necessary. Of course they are not. But I guess there are Chinese and Russians preying on us and this is a geopolitical reality?

These are excuses, nothing more and fatalism because of humanities apparent weakness is not conductive to positive development nor very realistic.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#94

Post by raxxorrax »

readonthegoapp wrote: post #46
tapgnid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are reasons why you believe this if you disproportionally own more than thousands combined. Even just for yourself you need some justification. What better than to declare humanity evil, constrained by its nature? Makes you sleep better at night and can justify anything you have done. It was just your nature.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#95

Post by raxxorrax »

jjcc wrote: post #62
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…

A lot of things are changing during evolution. For example the genes that were beneficial to human in ancient time give high diabetes risk in modern society. As to cooperation and competition, war is part of evolution that leads to the formation of modern human. But with invention of nuclear weapon the original rules that benefit to whole specie (but not individuals) are not applied any more. So Chomsky's view might…

Somethimes it isn't "modern society" and just the gallons of coke you can buy in super markets to the price of water. Well, on the other hand that isn't too different to classical evolutional processes that rely on chance.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#96

Post by raxxorrax »

jwmhjwmh wrote: post #77
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 I agree with Chomsky that humans can create a much less hierarchical society. Most of what he advocates for (reducing American imperialism) is a pragmatic step towards giving people in the countries of the world more direct control over their lives. Would you say this is not possible? I don't think there's going to be a global revolution, but I do think we should strive to question hierarchy and increase huma…

Problem is that there are other countries that would use the vacuum left behind to further their ambitions. In a way colonization is still relevant in all developing countries.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#97

Post by raxxorrax »

hguant wrote: post #17

[flagged]

I don't know what this has to do with Israel again, but there seems to be a pattern lately...

That said, I don't think Chomsky held back on that department. Not even slightly, on the contrary he is pretty outspoken about it. But contrary to what we hear from others, it is often reasonable.

It is a start to motivate people to hold their representatives accountable. Development and improvement can only happen here.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#98

Post by dsq »

"Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum" - George Attali. American world involvement does have some aspects of imperialism. But are we to be so naive as to assume that America's withdrawal from control of resources wouldn't be quickly followed by their takeover by other, even less enlightened players?

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#99

Post by jwmhjwmh »

raxxorrax wrote: post #96
jwmhjwmh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with Chomsky that humans can create a much less hierarchical society. Most of what he advocates for (reducing American imperialism) is a pragmatic step towards giving people in the countries of the world more direct control over their lives. Would you say this is not possible? I don't think there's going to be a global revolution, but I do think we should strive to question hierarchy and increase huma…

Problem is that there are other countries that would use the vacuum left behind to further their ambitions. In a way colonization is still relevant in all developing countries.

An informed and empowered populace is a check against imperialism/colonization. Look at the opposition to the Vietnam war, for example. With the existence of the global internet, it has become much easier for citizens to track what their governments are doing. I think that we can decrease inter-country domination over time by pushing for more democracy and education worldwide.

Re: Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

#100

Post by jollybean »

oblio wrote: post #92
jollybean wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union. They was also an 'ally' in WW2, I think 'enemy of my enemy' would be a more apt term. The Soviets were an authoritarian mass murdering regime (Stalin murdered 4-5 million on purpose in Ukraine, but that's just one small item on the list) that already ruthlessly ruled much of Central Asia, and the only reason the Czechs, E. Germans, Poles…

> Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union. We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the *birth* of the Soviet Union. Imperial Russia, no matter what you may think of its morals, was an ally of the Western powers. It fought together with them, it was completely exhausted by the war, it collapsed. Immediately after its collapse, the Western powers, acting very much like h…

Yes, Imperial Russia was definitely a different thing altogether.

But it's a stretch to say that those countries 'invaded' Russia. There was 'backing' of a side during a revolution, that's not the same thing.

The American revolution was supported by France and the American civil war had 'backing' by other parties.

I don't think the backing of outside powers is hugely relevant to that outcome, that said, the point in general (i.e. actual outside invaders) is reasonable.

I think it's different in every situation though.

I mean Afghanistan, Chile, Cuba, Libya ... all so different there's hardly a common thread other than '2 sides during the Cold War'.

Post reply on HN