After Chomsky/Who else?
Paul Bailey
articulate, and effective critic of his type.
For me he articulates much of my anger and concern about hypocrisy in the
world. But he's not going to be around for ever. Who else is there who
writes along the same lines? To coin a cliche who do you think will pick up
the baton when he passes it on?
--
Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the
election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to
jail. That's democracy for you.
Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir
Russil Wvong
> As far as I can see Chomsky is far and away the most knowledgeable,
> articulate, and effective critic of his type.
>
> For me he articulates much of my anger and concern about hypocrisy in the
> world. But he's not going to be around for ever. Who else is there who
> writes along the same lines? To coin a cliche who do you think will pick up
> the baton when he passes it on?
Check out some younger journalists who write about international politics,
particularly wars, crises, and humanitarian issues in developing countries:
- Samantha Power (Rwanda)
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm
- Philip Gourevitch (Rwanda)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/interviews/gourevitch.html
- Mark Danner (Balkans)
http://www.markdanner.com/nyreview/032698_Bosnia_The_Great_Betrayal.htm
- David Rieff
http://www.netnomad.com/rieff.html
- Michael Ignatieff (human rights)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/ignatieff.htm
Also see the contributors to www.crimesofwar.org.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
alt.politics.international FAQ: www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
Oliver Kamm
"Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3dc3e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Who else is there who
> writes along the same lines?
David Irving.
Jeffrey Ketland
Russil's list is a good one, particularly Michael Ignatieff.
Rather more radical critics are
--- John Pilger (Cambodia, East Timor, Palestine, etc.):
http://pilger.carlton.com/
--- Greg Palast (the US election, globalization) http://www.gregpalast.com/,
--- Robert Fisk (search http://www.independent.co.uk/ and also
http://www.robert-fisk.com/)
--- Arundhati Roy (see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,800015,00.html and
http://www.arundhatiroy.org.uk/.)
--- Christopher Hitchens (see, e.g., http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/)
Writings by these boys and guys easily found by a few minutes on Google.
--- Jeff
Jez
"Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3dc3e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> articulate, and effective critic of his type.
>
> For me he articulates much of my anger and concern about hypocrisy in the
> world. But he's not going to be around for ever. Who else is there who
> writes along the same lines? To coin a cliche who do you think will pick
up
> the baton when he passes it on?
>
>
:)
--
Ho hum
Jez
Remove NOtSPAM to reply
Paul Bailey
of dissent. Does he have a natural successor?
Paul
Mark Hausen
that kind of thing.
Regards
Mark
torresD
http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org/
The Politics of Shit - Eyal Weizman
There has been a recent and deliberate
breaking loose of sewage systems
across the West Bank.
The strong topography allows Israeli settlements
and Palestinian cities to spill their sewage through
the valleys toward each other.
The Palestinian municipality of Hebron was
awarded a sewage-recycling farm from the
German government.
But its operation was halted.
According to agreements,
the project was still regulated
by the Joint Water Committee.
It needed Israel's permission,
and Israel might demand a quota of the water.
Since then,
to put pressure on Israel to concede the waters,
the municipality of Hebron has been spilling its
residential and industrial sewage into the
Hebron River that flows, via three settlements,
to the outskirts of Beer Sheva in Israel proper.
Non-existent or disintegrating underground
pipes allow sewage to flow overground the
length of some Palestinian refugee camps.
This visible shit testifies to day-visiting
official guests of the Palestinian Authority
of an inhumane permanent neglect,
the everlasting problem of the refugees,
consequence of the yet-unresolved conflict.
Efforts by different NGOs and UN departments
to repair this system of infrastructure with permanent
underground plumbing have often been rejected by
the Palestinian Authority.
They can allow no real improvement or
investment in infrastructure until the
refugee camps are considered
permanent settlements.
Sewage is a political weapon when
dislocated from the bowels of the earth
to the overground.
When shit is invisible underground,
it is merely sewage, running through a
technically complex system of public plumbing.
But let it only break loose over
the surface, and sewage
becomes shit again.
The latitudinal co-ordinates affirm
the nature of the substance.
When sewage overflows and private shit,
from under the ground, invades the public
realm of the street, it becomes simultaneously
a private hazard and a public asset -
to be used as a tool by the authorities.
Click here to read the sixth episode:
EXCAVATING SACREDNESS
Email responses, experiences,
questions and thoughts to
wit...@openDemocracy.net
next image
This photograph shows open sewage
running down a Gaza street.
This state of affairs is also common
in the Palestinian refugee camps on
the West Bank.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/dynamics/dynamic_website_document.asp?DocID=130
4&Action=DisplayPage#ONE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wading In Shit.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/dynamics/dynamic_website_document.asp?DocID=130
7&Action=DisplayPage#ONE
Russil Wvong
> Thanks. These are all good links but for me Chomsky is a focus for this sort
> of dissent. Does he have a natural successor?
Hmm. I assume you mean a prominent critic of US foreign policy, rather
than a revolutionary.
I would have said Christopher Hitchens, up until the 9/11 attack and
Hitchens' public split with Chomsky. Hitchens may still be the best
candidate. He writes with a great deal of moral fervor, he's concerned
with social justice, and he's written scathing criticisms of Clinton
and Kissinger. Finally, he's quite a prominent figure (unlike, say,
Francis Boyle).
Paul Bailey
news:3dc48e92$0$18875$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
As I was asking the original question I realised it was along the lines of
'anarchist seeks leader'. My point remains though. Without reference to good
writing some of us are just bundles of inarticulate rage. For me Chomsky is
head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to articulating dissent. A
lot of anti authority writing is really pretty poor, something must be done
etc, and I'd say most of the good stuff fits a formula. Chomsky is different
in that his approach seems to be intellectual. Also a key stylistic device
is along the lines of, 'of course they commit crimes against humanity it's
the only way to maintain their position'. This itself is very persuasive.
Besides this he offers constructive alternatives, again this is seriously
lacking in a lot of anti authority 'thinking'.
Chomsky is a/the key voice in this field. When he is gone we will be missing
some serious ammunition. Who is in the second line of attack?
Wester
Joseph Michael Bay
>As I was asking the original question I realised it was along the lines of
>'anarchist seeks leader'. My point remains though. Without reference to good
>writing some of us are just bundles of inarticulate rage. For me Chomsky is
>head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to articulating dissent. A
>lot of anti authority writing is really pretty poor, something must be done
>etc, and I'd say most of the good stuff fits a formula. Chomsky is different
>in that his approach seems to be intellectual.
I think that anyone into Chomsky would do well to read
the writings of old anarchists; there's a good bibliography
at flag.blackened.net. It's got a variety of stuff, anarcho-
syndicalist and anarcho-communist, as well as whatever else.
Also, it would probably be better to read a variety of
analysts/critics, who may at times disagree with each other,
Chomsky tends to be a tiny bit dogmatic and inflexible, and
maybe that's inseparable from his determination but it's
still a good reason not to take what he says as gospel.
Incidentally, he'll tell you the same thing. Some will
argue he doesn't mean it, but it's good advice nonetheless.
>Also a key stylistic device
>is along the lines of, 'of course they commit crimes against humanity it's
>the only way to maintain their position'. This itself is very persuasive.
>Besides this he offers constructive alternatives, again this is seriously
>lacking in a lot of anti authority 'thinking'.
One of the things that bothers me a lot about Chomsky is
that he *doesn't* offer constructive alternatives, except
in some specific instances. Against terrorism? Don't
participate in it (of course, but that's not going to
stop people indoctrinated against us). Or how the US
should pay reparations to Nicaragua and East Timor (again,
a valid point), but for addressing unaccountable power or
the propaganda model he doesn't offer any really useful
alternatives.
>Chomsky is a/the key voice in this field. When he is gone we will be missing
>some serious ammunition. Who is in the second line of attack?
There shouldn't be a single figure, but at the same time
anti-authoritarians need to continue coalition-building
rather than ideological splintering.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ DO NOT PRESS
Dan Clore
He meant along the same lines as Chomsky, not the same lines
as Oliver Kamm.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith
Jack Black
>
> Who else is there who writes along the same lines? To coin a cliche
> who do you think will pick up the baton when he passes it on?
In alphabetical order:
Robert Fiske
Christopher Hitchens
Michael Parenti
John Pilger
Howard Zinn
Unlike Chomsky, Fiske and Pilger actually dirty their hands with
journalism. Like Chomsky (and unlike Fiske and Pilger) Hitchens,
Parenti, and Zinn are intellectuals. Hitchens is suspect - he looks
like he is pulling a David Horowitz. Zinn, like Chomsky, is old.
Unlike Chomsky, Parenti is a public speaker. Unlike Chomsky and
Zinn, Parenti is young.
Parenti is at the top of the short list. (Then again, there's always
Ed Herman - who isn't a public speaker)
When Chomsky kicks the bucket, Zinn goes to the top of the list.
After Zinn croaks, Parenti.
Oliver Kamm
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3dc3e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> > > Who else is there who writes along the same lines?
> >
> > David Irving.
>
> He meant along the same lines as Chomsky, not the same lines
> as Oliver Kamm.
>
Clore gets there at last: Irving was found by a court of law to be
dishonest in his use of source material and to whitewash the cause of
Holocaust denial. Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source
material and described the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson as 'a
sort of relatively apolitical liberal'.
Josh Dougherty
> articulate, and effective critic of his type.
>
> For me he articulates much of my anger and concern about hypocrisy in the
> world. But he's not going to be around for ever. Who else is there who
> writes along the same lines? To coin a cliche who do you think will pick up
> the baton when he passes it on?
I'd probably say Michael Parenti. Zinn's probably the next most
prominent after Chomsky, but he's also older than Chomsky. So he
certainly can't be the "next generation". I think Parenti's in his
50's.
There's other younger people like Michael Albert who does do public
speaking, but his topics don't cover as much ground as Chomsky. He
seems to focus more exclusively on economics and activism, rather than
world affairs and everything else that Chomsky covers.
Then there's Christopher Hitchens, but I'm not sure what's going on
with him these days. He appears to be "seeing the light" and turning
against "the left" ....and thereby naturally gaining a lot of more
exposure in the "liberal media" all of a sudden. Have to wait and see
where that goes.
Then there's Ward Churchill and Kevin Danaher who I think are
relatively young, but not very well known.
Josh
M J Carley
http://www.counterpunch.com/
--
`Al vero filosofo ogni terreno e' patria.'
No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Home page: http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Paul Bailey
news:3DC63309...@myself.com...
>
> When Chomsky kicks the bucket, Zinn goes to the top of the list.
> After Zinn croaks, Parenti.
I like this Lady MacBeth approach.
Cheers
Paul
Dan Clore
Case in point.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
Jack Black
>
> But now Hitchens is like so 15 minutes ago....
Counterpunch
October 22, 2002
Letter to a Lying,
Self-Serving, Fat-Assed,
Chain Smoking, Drunken,
Opportunistic, Cynical
Contrarian (AKA C.
Hitchens)
by JACK McCARTHY
Hitchens, you fucking fat-assed drunken slut.
You lying sack of shit.
Sir, have you no sense of personal integrity
whatsoever?
Mother Theresa might have been in the
"Missionary Position," but you are taking it
every which way from people who make poor old
Charles Keating look like Kris Kringle.
But I digress--already.
I just read your latest, self-serving Orwellian
rewriting and distortion of recent history
published in last Sunday's Washington Post, "So
Long, Fellow Travelers."
First observation: It appears to be modeled on
David Horowitz's and Peter Collier's
treacherous, "Lefties for Reagan," published in
the early 80s on those same pages. And for
good reason.
Like those two self-serving jackals you aren't
promoting a future war on Iraq--and the Left--
for any real principle other than personal gain.
Like Horowitz and Collier you are using the
Left--and even more pathetically--the people of
Iraq to justify the selling of your most pitiable
soul.
Your dishonest posturing here is not only
contrary to the spirit of the Orwell of your
alcohol tinged imagination, its an abomination
worthy of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.
But let's get to the nub of the issue fat boy.
Like another windy fat ass, Al Franken's Rush
Limbaugh, you are a big fat liar.
After 20 years as a columnist for The Nation,
rather than thank the readers who have read
and supported you over the years, you made
the most graceless exit from an uncomfortable
scene since Adolph and Eva.
Rather than say a few words about your tenure
at The Nation, in one short paragraph you all
but pulled your pants down, stuck your fat ass
in the face of your many readers and said: "I'm
out of here."
Adding insult to injury you claimed you were
leaving because you had just discovered that
the editors of "The Nation" were taking sides in
the Iraq debate. Are you nuts? Do you for one
minute think anyone believed such tripe?
Perhaps you think your readers also wake up
swigging Johnny Walker? What a joke. What an
insult to your reader's intelligence. Were you
serious? Or just drunk again?
But I digress. Let us return to your silly, sorry
posturing on Iraq and the Left in the Sunday
Washington post. Boy, you must have been
sloshed when you wrote this. I mean this is
pink elephant shit.
Linking all the Left with the Workers World
Party was a piece of sly, red-baiting propaganda
worthy of Orwell's worst nightmare.
What a foul act you are. "A right wing porker,"
indeed Alex.
Your lowest moment, however, was when you
solemenly declared at the end of this
abominable paean to your fat-assed self-- that
once Iraq was liberated you would go to
Baghdad to apologize to old "comrades" for the
actions of the Left.
Tsk, tsk. I mean didn't it occur to you there was
a paper trail indicting you in the Lefts thought
crime?
Hitch, you lying slut. Are you going to apologize
as well to your newly freed Iraqi "comrades" for
opposing Bush Sr's war on Iraq in Gulf War 1?
Did you think for that matter that your old
comrades here forgot your many writings
against that war?
Do you recall chiding Bush Sr for turning a
"regional war" into a "global war?"
Did you think we forgot your infamous pasting
of poor befuddled(now we know why)Charleton
Heston on CNN?
To summarize.
Hitchens: You are a Big Fat Liar and a Right
Wing Porker.
And a fat assed fucking bore who deserves a
good ass kicking.
Contrarily Yours
Jack McCarthy
Tallahassee, Florida
McCarthy can be reached at:
jackm...@yahoo.com
Oliver Kamm
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3DC5DFAF...@columbia-center.org>...
> > > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > > > "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3dc3e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> > > > > Who else is there who writes along the same lines?
> > > >
> > > > David Irving.
> > >
> > > He meant along the same lines as Chomsky, not the same lines
> > > as Oliver Kamm.
> > >
> > Clore gets there at last: Irving was found by a court of law to be
> > dishonest in his use of source material and to whitewash the cause of
> > Holocaust denial. Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source
> > material and described the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson as 'a
> > sort of relatively apolitical liberal'.
>
> Case in point.
>
"Noam Chomsky in American Power and the New Mandarins (1969) twice
claimed that Truman had said: 'All freedom is dependent on freedom of
enterprise.... The whole world should adopt the American system....'
Truman said nothing of the sort, at Baylor [where Chomsky claims he
said it] or anywhere else. The quotation is fabricated," (Arthur
Schlesinger Jnr, The Cycles of American History, 1986, page 135-6).
"[I]s it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted
earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read
-- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find
no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible
evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in
the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can
determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."
(Noam Chomsky, 'Quelques commentaires elementaires sur le droit a la
liberte d'expression', printed as the preface to Faurisson's _Memoire
en defense_.)
We can certainly all admire the enterprising originality of Clore's
assumption that none of the rest will check his claims and demonstrate
his own adherence to the Irving school of scholarly method: not only
dishonesty, but stupid dishonesty, because he's bound to be found out.
Point demonstrated.
Oliver Kamm
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3DC5DFAF...@columbia-center.org>...
> > > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > > > "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3dc3e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> > > > > Who else is there who writes along the same lines?
> > > >
> > > > David Irving.
> > >
> > > He meant along the same lines as Chomsky, not the same lines
> > > as Oliver Kamm.
> > >
> > Clore gets there at last: Irving was found by a court of law to be
> > dishonest in his use of source material and to whitewash the cause of
> > Holocaust denial. Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source
> > material and described the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson as 'a
> > sort of relatively apolitical liberal'.
>
> Case in point.
No no no: Irving really was found to be dishonest in his use of source
material and to have whitewashed the cause of Holocaust denial. Did
you not follow the story, old bean?
Josh Dougherty
Consider yourself lucky that you're so irrelevant that no one would
really bother that much with you Oliver. If your alt.fan.noam-chomsky
posts were held to any standards of honesty you'd have been hung by
now.
Josh Dougherty
> Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source material
lie with intent to slander.
> and described the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively > apolitical liberal'.
mischaracterized with intent to slander, and irrelevant.
More "honest" analysis from "leftist" Oliver Kamm. To borrow Jez's motto: ho hum.
Josh
Guilherme C Roschke
> -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find
> no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible
> evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in
> the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can
> determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."
> (Noam Chomsky, 'Quelques commentaires elementaires sur le droit a la
> liberte d'expression', printed as the preface to Faurisson's _Memoire
> en defense_.)
>
read" , "as far as i can determine". if he read teh guy's laundry list,
he's certainly off the hook.
-gr
Dan Clore
This is obviously one of those foul, nasty, leftist, commie
lies: Cuttlefish Kamm would not have been hung. He would
have been *hanged*.
Dan Clore
Case in point number two. The Cuttlefish certainly makes
things easy these days.
LIBERATOR
> articulate, and effective critic of his type.
>
> For me he articulates much of my anger and concern about hypocrisy in the
> world. But he's not going to be around for ever. Who else is there who
> writes along the same lines? To coin a cliche who do you think will pick up
> the baton when he passes it on?
Possibly no one. Robert McChesney is the most capable I think. His
writing and insights are the same potency with accuracy.
Oliver Kamm
This becomes an still *more* enterprising notion: Clore appears to be
denying that Chomsky described a Holocaust denier as 'a sort of
relatively apolitical liberal'. He must believe either that when
Chomsky wrote 'a sort of relatively apolitical liberal' he was being
impersonated by someone else, or that Robert Faurisson is not a
Holocaust denier. The ng will look forward to the evidence provided
for either or both of these propositions.
Oliver Kamm
But of course Chomsky on his *own* admission read stuff considerably
more informative than Faurisson's laundry list. In the same article
quoted above, he states that he read an article by Pierre Vidal-Naquet
in Esprit,
September 1980: "I was considerably more surprised to read in _Esprit_
(September 1980) that Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition
"scandaleuse,"
citing specifically that fact that I had signed it "
That article (which is reprinted as the first chapter of
Vidal-Naquet's
_Assassins of Memory_, 1992, originally published in French as _Les
assassins de
la memoire_ in 1987) contains the following summary of the beliefs of
Faurisson
and his fellow-deniers (pages 18-19 of the book cited above): "It is
Faurisson
who stands within revisionist truth [i.e. the real nature of the
Holocaust
denial movement] when he proffers his famous formula: 'Never did
Hitler either
order or accept that anyone be killed for reason of race or religion'
(Verite,
p. 91). The 'revisionists', in fact, all more or less share several
extremely
simple principles.....[Vidal-Naquet goes on to list these beliefs,
including the
following.] 2. The 'final solution' was never anything other than the
expulsion
of the Jews towards eastern Europe, their 'repression', as Faurisson
elegantly
puts it (Verite, p. 90). Since 'most of the Jews of France came from
the east',
it may be concluded that it was never anything more than their
repatriation, a
bit as when French authorities repatriated Algerians, in October 1961,
in their
'native douars'. 3. The number of Jewish victims of Nazism is far
smaller than
has been claimed.... Faurisson, for his part, (almost) divides the
million
[claimed by his fellow deniers Butz and Rassinier] in two: a few
hundred
thousand deaths in uniform (which is a fine demonstration of valor)
and as many
killed in 'acts of war' (Verite, p. 197). As for the death statistics
for
Auschwitz, they 'rose to about 50,000 (ibid.). 4. Hitler's Germany
does not bear
the principal responsibility for the Second World War. It shares that
responsibility, for example, with the Jews (Faurisson in Verite, p.
187), or it
may even not bear any responsibility at all."
So Chomsky ON HIS OWN ADMISSION had read a thorough and damning
summary, referenced and sourced, to Faurisson's apologetics for Nazi
treatment of the Jews BEFORE he described Faurisson as 'a sort of
relatively apolitical liberal'. The ng will now greatly enjoy
Roschke's attempt to retrieve his position. My advice to him is to do
as Ketland did when I previously presented this evidence: scuttle from
the ng and then re-emerge some months later pretending that nothing
has happened. Except that I shall be there to remind him that he
considers pro-Nazi propaganda to be no worse than a laundry list.
Oliver Kamm
Well, this is extraordinary: Dougherty is *denying* that Chomsky
described a Holocaust denier as 'a sort of relatively apolitical
liberal'. Unfortunately this comes down to what in Ketland's
terminology is an EASILY CHECKABLE FACT. Indeed, it is so EASILY
CHECKABLE a FACT that Dougherty looks pretty dim for denying it.
Presumably he believes that if he brazens it out then the rest of us
will pretend that this EASILY CHECKABLE FACT does not exist.
The double entendre in the second sentence is presumably intended to
make us laugh so much at Dougherty's incompetent command of language
as to make us forget his disgenuousness in the first. Too bad it won't
have that effect.
Dan Clore
Case in point number three.
Josh Dougherty
news:40cd7d30.02110...@posting.google.com...
This whole paragraph is a non sequitur.
> The double entendre in the second sentence is presumably intended to
> make us laugh so much at Dougherty's incompetent command of language
> as to make us forget his disgenuousness in the first. Too bad it won't
> have that effect.
Oh no, the grammatical error!
Oh well, it's "on record" now. Kamm has me on the ropes.
Josh
Jack Black
That compassionate missive of dissent tolerant solidarity was inspired
by this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50657-2002Oct19.html
So Long, Fellow Travelers
By Christopher Hitchens
Washington Post
Sunday, October 20, 2002; Page B01
George Bush made a mistake when he referred to the Saddam Hussein
regime as "evil." Every liberal and leftist knows how to titter at such
black-and-white moral absolutism. What the president should have done,
in the unlikely event that he wanted the support of America's
peace-mongers, was to describe a confrontation with Saddam as the
"lesser evil."
This is a term the Left can appreciate. Indeed, "lesser evil" is part of
the essential tactical rhetoric of today's Left, and has been deployed
to excuse or overlook the sins of liberal Democrats, from President
Clinton's bombing of Sudan to Madeleine Albright's veto of an
international rescue for Rwanda when she was U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations. Among those longing for nuance, moral relativism -- the
willingness to use the term evil, when combined with a willingness to
make accommodations with it -- is the smart thing: so much more
sophisticated than "cowboy" language.
Actually, the best case for a regime change in Iraq is that it is the
lesser evil: better on balance than the alternatives, which are to
confront Saddam later and at a time of his choosing, trust him to make a
full disclosure to inspectors or essentially leave him alone.
You might think that the Left could have a regime-change perspective of
its own, based on solidarity with its comrades abroad. After all,
Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party consolidated its power by first destroying
the Iraqi communist and labor movements, and then turning on the Kurds
(whose cause, historically, has been one of the main priorities of the
Left in the Middle East). When I first became a socialist, the
imperative of international solidarity was the essential if not the
defining thing, whether the cause was popular or risky or not. I haven't
seen an anti-war meeting all this year at which you could even guess at
the existence of the Iraqi and Kurdish opposition to Saddam, an
opposition that was fighting for "regime change" when both Republicans
and Democrats were fawning over Baghdad as a profitable client and
geopolitical ally. Not only does the "peace" movement ignore the
anti-Saddam civilian opposition, it sends missions to console the
Ba'athists in their isolation, and speaks of the invader of Kuwait and
Iran and the butcher of Kurdistan as if he were the victim and George W.
Bush the aggressor.
Some peaceniks clear their throats by saying that, of course, they
oppose Saddam Hussein as much as anybody, though not enough to support
doing anything about him.
But some don't even bother to make this disavowal. In the United States,
the main organizer of anti-war propaganda is Ramsey Clark, who perhaps
understandably can't forgive himself for having been Lyndon Johnson's
attorney general. However, he fails to live down this early disgrace by
acting as a front man for a sinister sect -- the International Action
Center, cover name for the Workers World Party -- which refuses to make
any criticism of the Saddam regime. It is this quasi-Stalinist group,
co-organized by a man with the wondrous name of Clark Kissinger, which
has recruited such figures as Ed Asner and Marisa Tomei to sign the "Not
In Our Name" petition. Funny as this may be in some ways (I don't think
the administration is going to war in the name of Ed Asner or Marisa
Tomei, let alone Gore Vidal), it is based on a surreptitious political
agenda. In Britain, the chief spokesman of the "anti-war" faction is a
Labour MP named George Galloway, who is never happier than when writing
moist profiles of Saddam and who says that the collapse of the Soviet
Union was the worst moment of his life.
For the democratic and libertarian Left, that same moment was a high
point and not a low one. But there were three ruling parties in the
world that greeted the liberation of Eastern Europe with unreserved
gloom. These were the Socialist Party of Serbia, the Ba'ath Party of
Iraq and the Workers' Party of North Korea, guided by their lugubrious
yet megalomaniacal leaders. Since then, these three party-states and
selfish dictators have done their considerable best to ruin the promise
of the post Cold War years and to impose themselves even more ruthlessly
on their own peoples and neighbors.
It took a long time for the world to wake up to Slobodan Milosevic and
even longer to get him where he belongs, which is in the dock. It will
probably be even more arduous ridding ourselves of the menace of Saddam
Hussein.
The most depressing thing, for me at any rate, has been to see so much
of the Left so determined to hamper this process, which is why, after 20
years, I have given up my column in the Nation magazine. The Left has
employed arguments as contemptible as those on whose behalf they have
been trotted out. It maintained that any resistance to ethnic cleansing
in Bosnia and Kosovo would lead to a wider war, chaos and/or the
rallying of the Serbs to Milosevic. It forecast massive quagmires and
intolerable civilian casualties. If this sounds familiar, it may be
because you are hearing it again now and heard it last year from those
who thought the Taliban-al Qaeda base in Afghanistan was not worth
fighting about.
But the element of bad faith in the argument is far worse than the
feeble-minded hysteria of its logic. In the Balkans, those on the Left
and Right who favored intervention could not live with the idea that
Europe would permit the extermination of its oldest Muslim minority. At
that point, the sensibilities of Islam did not seem to matter to the
Ramsey Clarks and Noam Chomskys, who thought and wrote of
national-socialist and Orthodox Serbia as if it were mounting a gallant
resistance to globalization. (Saddam, of course, took Milosevic's side
even though the Serb leader was destroying mosques and murdering
Muslims.)
Now, however, the same people are all frenzied about an American-led
"attack on the Muslim world." Are the Kurds not Muslims? Is the new
Afghan government not Muslim? Will not the next Iraqi government be
Muslim also? This meaningless demagogy among the peaceniks can only be
explained by a masochistic refusal to admit that our own civil society
has any merit, or by a nostalgia for Stalinism that I can sometimes
actually taste as well as smell.
There is, of course, a soggier periphery of more generally pacifist
types, whose preferred method of argument about regime change is subject
change. The same people, in other words, who don't think that Saddam
has any weapons of mass destruction will argue the next moment that, if
attacked, he will unleash them with devastating effect. Or they say that
a Palestinian solution should come first, which would offer Saddam a
very long lease, given the prospects of a final settlement with Israel
(which, meantime, he would have the power and incentive to disrupt). Or
they say we should try deterrence or containment -- the two terms most
ridiculed by the Left during the Cold War. And what about the fact that
"we" used to be Saddam's backers? And, finally, aren't there other bad
guys in the region, and isn't this a double standard?
The last two questions actually have weight, even if they are lightly
tossed around. The serious response to the first one would be that, to
the extent that the United States underwrote Saddam in the past, this
redoubles our responsibility to cancel the moral debt by removing him.
The serious response to the second one would involve noticing that the
Saudi Arabian and Turkish oligarchies are, interestingly enough, also
opposed to "regime change" in the region. And since when is the Left
supposed to argue for preservation of the status quo? Even a halfway
emancipated Iraq would hold out at least the promise of a better life
for the Kurds (which annoys the Turks). Its oil resources, once freed
up, could help undercut the current Saudi monopoly.
Excellent. This is presumably unintelligible to those content to chant,
"No war for oil," as if it were a matter of indifference who controlled
the reserves of the region, or who might threaten to ignite or even
irradiate these reserves if given the chance.
As someone who has done a good deal of marching and public speaking
about Vietnam, Chile, South Africa, Palestine and East Timor in his time
(and would do it all again), I can only hint at how much I despise a
Left that thinks of Osama bin Laden as a slightly misguided
anti-imperialist. (He actually says he wants to restore the old imperial
caliphate and has condemned the Australian-led international rescue of
East Timor as a Christian plot against Muslim Indonesia). Or a Left that
can think of Milosevic and Saddam as victims.
Instead of internationalism, we find among the Left now a sort of
affectless, neutralist, smirking isolationism. In this moral universe,
the views of the corrupt and conservative Jacques Chirac -- who built
Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor, knowing what he wanted it for -- carry
more weight than those of persecuted Iraqi democrats. In this moral
universe, the figure of Jimmy Carter -- who incited Saddam to attack
Iran in 1980, without any U.N. or congressional consultation that I can
remember -- is considered axiomatically more statesmanlike than Bush.
Sooner or later, one way or another, the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples will
be free of Saddam Hussein. When that day comes, I am booked to have a
reunion in Baghdad with several old comrades who have been through hell.
We shall not be inviting anyone who spent this precious time urging
democratic countries to give Saddam another chance.
Oliver Kamm
> > >
> > > Consider yourself lucky that you're so irrelevant that no one would
> > > really bother that much with you Oliver. If your alt.fan.noam-chomsky
> > > posts were held to any standards of honesty you'd have been hung by
> > > now.
> >
> > Well, this is extraordinary: Dougherty is *denying* that Chomsky
> > described a Holocaust denier as 'a sort of relatively apolitical
> > liberal'. Unfortunately this comes down to what in Ketland's
> > terminology is an EASILY CHECKABLE FACT. Indeed, it is so EASILY
> > CHECKABLE a FACT that Dougherty looks pretty dim for denying it.
> > Presumably he believes that if he brazens it out then the rest of us
> > will pretend that this EASILY CHECKABLE FACT does not exist.
>
> This whole paragraph is a non sequitur.
No it isn't: it's a statement of the highly pertinent fact that
Chomsky displays the Irving-like characteristics of being 'an
intellectual crook' (as described by Arthur Schlesinger Jnr) and a
whitewasher of Holocaust denial. Or are you denying that Chomsky ever
described a Holocaust denier as 'a sort of relatively apolitical
liberal'?
>
> > The double entendre in the second sentence is presumably intended to
> > make us laugh so much at Dougherty's incompetent command of language
> > as to make us forget his disgenuousness in the first. Too bad it won't
> > have that effect.
>
> Oh no, the grammatical error!
>
> Oh well, it's "on record" now. Kamm has me on the ropes.
>
> Josh
It's certainly not impressive to be unaware of this past participle.
Oliver Kamm
>
> > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source material
>
> lie with intent to slander.
So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American Power and the New
Mandarins, President Truman with having made were accurate, were they?
>
> > and described the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson as 'a sort of relatively > apolitical liberal'.
>
> mischaracterized with intent to slander, and irrelevant.
So Chomsky never used the words 'a relatively apolitical sort of
liberal' (or to be more precise, their French equivalent) when
describing a Holocaust denier, did he? Given that this discussion
centres on the analogy between Chomsky and David Irving, the attitude
of Chomsky to Holocaust deniers is extremely relevant.
>
> More "honest" analysis from "leftist" Oliver Kamm.
It is, and I am. Or do you regard whitewashing Nazism as an essential
characteristic of the Left?
Josh Dougherty
news:<eee564bd.02110...@posting.google.com>...
> > olive...@tiscali.co.uk (Oliver Kamm) wrote in message
news:<40cd7d30.0211...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source material
> >
> > lie with intent to slander.
>
> So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American Power and the New
> Mandarins, President Truman with having made were accurate, were they?
You've changed the question, since your lie is now evident. Look up someone
named James Warburg, and get back to me.
> > > and described the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson as 'a sort of
relatively > apolitical liberal'.
> >
> > mischaracterized with intent to slander, and irrelevant.
>
> So Chomsky never used the words 'a relatively apolitical sort of
> liberal' (or to be more precise, their French equivalent) when
> describing a Holocaust denier, did he? Given that this discussion
> centres on the analogy between Chomsky and David Irving, the attitude
> of Chomsky to Holocaust deniers is extremely relevant.
> >
> > More "honest" analysis from "leftist" Oliver Kamm.
>
> It is, and I am.
"the fact that you decided to truncate the quotation at exactly that point
you did [as well as adding loaded editorial] demonstrates that you wanted to
mislead this ng as regards [Chomsky's] views."...."You can play games as
much as you like, but I'm afraid the evidence is beyond argument: you are a
cheat and a fraud."
> Or do you regard whitewashing Nazism as an essential characteristic of the
Left?
Your "left" perhaps.
Just say that Nazi Germany was "a brave attempt by an elected civilian
government to protect
the people from the [Eastern Communists and the Western Imperialists]".
Josh
James A. Donald
Oliver Kamm
> > > > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source material
Josh Dougherty
> > > lie with intent to slander.
Oliver Kamm
> > So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American Power and
> > the New Mandarins, President Truman with having made were
> > accurate, were they?
Josh Dougherty
> You've changed the question,
No he has not. He has cited evidence that Chomsky is on record
as fabricating his source material, and then asked if you
challenge that evidence.
In my experience, every surprising Chomsky citation is false in
some important fashion, usually in some subtle and complicated
way that is lengthy to explain, but sometimes in a
straightforward blatant fashion.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
D1wecUTAypGZNXEtFNbwoURfB/V+gE8K6Gh48U8i
400nDNMdn/WRXivo1TLBTeyP83HOdyVr4o9kJafem
Joseph Michael Bay
>jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.02110...@posting.google.com>...
>> olive...@tiscali.co.uk (Oliver Kamm) wrote in message news:<40cd7d30.0211...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source material
>>
>> lie with intent to slander.
>So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American Power and the New
>Mandarins, President Truman with having made were accurate, were they?
Sorry if I'm way off on this one, but wasn't the quote in
question attributable to James Warburg, who was paraphrasing
Truman? The attribution is corrected in printings after the
first.
Now a misattribution is a misattribution, and that's bad
citing (normally nothing to be alarmed about unless it's
happening a lot), and it *may* even have been done with
a dishonest intention (something to be alarmed about
indeed), I don't know. But in that case it's certainly
not *fabricated*, as Schlesinger writes.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ DO NOT PRESS
James A. Donald
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:50:57 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
> Now a misattribution is a misattribution, and that's bad
> citing (normally nothing to be alarmed about unless it's
> happening a lot), and it *may* even have been done with a
> dishonest intention (something to be alarmed about indeed), I
> don't know. But in that case it's certainly not
> *fabricated*, as Schlesinger writes.
Honest people, including myself, often give cites that are
incorrect in some fashion. However Chomksy almost invariably
gives cites that are incorrect in a fashion that will give the
reader the impression that very peculiar beliefs are well
supported by the documents referenced, when they are not.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
z5EsQEV+e+h8d9HuzrNo9QH4XSm8qu13kqEbMxon
4wrL8WkXTM49aefWcIsfNEq0QruQblkNcRUUXC7p2
Joseph Michael Bay
> --
>On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:50:57 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
>(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
>> Now a misattribution is a misattribution, and that's bad
>> citing (normally nothing to be alarmed about unless it's
>> happening a lot), and it *may* even have been done with a
>> dishonest intention (something to be alarmed about indeed), I
>> don't know. But in that case it's certainly not
>> *fabricated*, as Schlesinger writes.
>Honest people, including myself, often give cites that are
>incorrect in some fashion. However Chomksy almost invariably
>gives cites that are incorrect in a fashion that will give the
>reader the impression that very peculiar beliefs are well
>supported by the documents referenced, when they are not.
It's not even an example of that; it's Warburg paraphrasing
a Truman quote about the primacy of enterprise. Chomsky's
cites, and the views he draws from them, are certainly often
at odds with the way the people quoted would represent
themselves, or even see themselves, and as such they are
generally impolitic quotes people would often like not to
have said.
Joseph Michael Bay
>On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:50:57 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
>(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
>> Now a misattribution is a misattribution, and that's bad
>> citing (normally nothing to be alarmed about unless it's
>> happening a lot), and it *may* even have been done with a
>> dishonest intention (something to be alarmed about indeed), I
>> don't know. But in that case it's certainly not
>> *fabricated*, as Schlesinger writes.
>Honest people, including myself, often give cites that are
>incorrect in some fashion. However Chomksy almost invariably
>gives cites that are incorrect in a fashion that will give the
>reader the impression that very peculiar beliefs are well
>supported by the documents referenced, when they are not.
Ah, you see, when I read "fabricating" I assumed (as all
people would) that it meant "fabricating", rather than
"interpreting uncharitably" or even "misinterpreting",
or whatever it is wanted to mean.
I fabricate that this will fabricate to fabricate again
in the future fabrications on this fabricate, and that
a mutual fabricating can fabricate between us.
James A. Donald
Joseph Michael Bay:
> Ah, you see, when I read "fabricating" I assumed (as all
> people would) that it meant "fabricating", rather than
> "interpreting uncharitably" or even "misinterpreting", or
> whatever it is wanted to mean.
What it means is that Chomsky will confidently tell us that
such an such is supported by all sorts of authoritative and
learned documents, when in fact it is not. The documents
either do not say such and such, or they lack the authority
claimed, and commonly both.
He will tell us that a document said X as though it is quite
uncontroversial that it said X, as though anyone reading the
document will see that it obviously says X, when in fact it
straightforwardly says not-X, and you have to torture the text
until it confesses in order to get it to say X.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
VH6EUaAwZYXyP5XKSq2Prrog+E0Tbv3JaTbpwqxX
4f2OdUXrCr5iuaijNj5f8iAycbgMwduJGeLJwfhp1
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Honest people, including myself, often give cites that are
> > incorrect in some fashion. However Chomksy almost
> > invariably gives cites that are incorrect in a fashion that
> > will give the reader the impression that very peculiar
> > beliefs are well supported by the documents referenced,
> > when they are not.
Joseph Michael Bay
> Chomsky's cites, and the views he draws from them, are
> certainly often at odds with the way the people quoted would
> represent themselves,
A fact of which Chomsky curiously gives no hint when he cites
someone supposedly representing himself in a most surprising
fashion.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8g8qezJop16t5bYDi5uPMB016I+nKyLEo/YJijCU
4WeChnsskY/cVmEx4HAEcld9tmMUwi5lhUPZr1Cdc
Josh Dougherty
news:hi6lsuk4qq7ikg9kr...@4ax.com...
> --
> Oliver Kamm
> > > > > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source material
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > > > lie with intent to slander.
>
> Oliver Kamm
> > > So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American Power and
> > > the New Mandarins, President Truman with having made were
> > > accurate, were they?
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > You've changed the question,
>
> No he has not.
Of course he has. The statement to which I replied was the charge that
Chomsky had "fabricated" it.
Now the question is whether or not the quote in question was "accurate".
Those are two different questions. In the case of the latter, the question
is no longer about "fabrication" but rather about if the quote was incorrect
in some fashion. And of course, as you stated in this thread:
"Honest people, including myself, often give cites that are incorrect in
some fashion."
So, if Oliver Kamm has not in fact *changed the question* after being
challenged on his original proposition, then by your above words you've just
admitted to often "fabricating" your cites, since "inaccuracy" and
"fabrication" are now the same thing and not two different questions.
> He has cited evidence that Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source
material,
No, he has not.
An accusation of something from a 3rd party is not "evidence", nor does it
constitute anything being "on record" other than the fact that someone has
made that accusation.
> and then asked if you challenge that evidence.
No, he didn't ask me to challenge evidence because he has not offered any
evidence. He changed the question to something entirely different than what
I responded to, from "fabrication" to "inaccuracy", and asked me if I
challenge the latter.
Josh
James A. Donald
Oliver Kamm
> > > > > > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source
> > > > > > material
Josh Dougherty
> > > > > lie with intent to slander.
Oliver Kamm
> > > > So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American Power
> > > > and the New Mandarins, President Truman with having
> > > > made were accurate, were they?
Josh Dougherty
> > > You've changed the question,
James A. Donald:
> > No he has not.
Josh Dougherty
> Of course he has. The statement to which I replied was the
> charge that Chomsky had "fabricated" it.
I see so Chomsky did not fabricate the cite -- but instead
cited real documents and attributed to those real documents
statements that cannot be found in them.
Sounds like fabrication to me. You are just splitting hairs.
> Now the question is whether or not the quote in question was
> "accurate". Those are two different questions.
You sound like Clinton who first found it difficult to figure
out what a sexual relation was, and then told us it depends on
what the meaning of the word "is" is.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
M4bhILAae/z5TIoIiZULT4lP0JfDXpgGb3ZfTxN0
4N/E8V2y8jBsuxvGjtsiy6OByJadXprtQ7wROneLa
Joseph Michael Bay
> Joseph Michael Bay
>> Chomsky's cites, and the views he draws from them, are
>> certainly often at odds with the way the people quoted would
>> represent themselves,
>A fact of which Chomsky curiously gives no hint when he cites
>someone supposedly representing himself in a most surprising
>fashion.
So that means the quote was made up?
I'm sure many people would be quite surprised to hear
the Secretary of State go on TV and describe American
values as "the rich should plunder the poor". Does
the fact that something is surprising, or at odds with
how the original source wants to be perceived, make it
fabricated?
Josh Dougherty
> --
> Oliver Kamm
> > > > > > > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source
> > > > > > > material
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > > > > > lie with intent to slander.
>
> Oliver Kamm
> > > > > So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American Power
> > > > > and the New Mandarins, President Truman with having
> > > > > made were accurate, were they?
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > > > You've changed the question,
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > No he has not.
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > Of course he has. The statement to which I replied was the
> > charge that Chomsky had "fabricated" it.
>
> I see so Chomsky did not fabricate the cite -- but instead
> cited real documents and attributed to those real documents
> statements that cannot be found in them.
1. That's a straw man
2. Even the staw man scenario does not show fabrication. If I saw quote X
in the New York Times and mistakenly quoted it in my book as having come
from a different New York Post article, that would meet the requirements of
your above scenario. I cited a real document and attributed to that
document a statement that can not be found there. And I did not "fabricate"
the quote or my sources. I made an error. A quote or source being
"incorrect in some fashion" as opposed to being a "fabrication" are not in
any way the same thing and the difference is hardly splitting hairs.
> Sounds like fabrication to me. You are just splitting hairs.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395825172/qid=1036711610/sr=2-1/ref=
sr_2_1/002-4429590-1497632
> > Now the question is whether or not the quote in question was
> > "accurate". Those are two different questions.
>
> You sound like Clinton who first found it difficult to figure
> out what a sexual relation was, and then told us it depends on
> what the meaning of the word "is" is.
"Honest people, including myself, often fabricate cites."
Splitting hairs right?
Josh
Nathan Folkert
We've been over this already.
The real issue is not that Chomsky misattributed a quote to Truman --
after all, he corrected it in a later printing of his book, and
everybody makes that kind of mistake. The real issue is how Chomsky
uses Warburg's paraphrase to arrive at a conclusion that is utterly
unsupported by the actual text of Truman's speech. While he has
corrected the attribution, Chomsky has never corrected his use of the
paraphrase.
Schlesinger attacked what he called the "Open Door" school of
historians, who he accused of using sloppy scholarship to support a
kind of neo-Leninist economic theory of American imperialism. This is
exactly the use to which Chomsky put the Warburg paraphrase.
Chomsky took his interpretation of Warburg's paraphrase of Truman as
well as a less covert (he quotes it directly in APNM) distortion of a
defense strategy paper by Harold Rood and used them to conclude that
the ruling classes of America desired an eternally expanding American
Empire.
This is, of course, total bullshit -- neither Truman nor Rood said
anything of the sort, though it is more difficult to determine that
Truman said nothing of the sort, because one has to go dig out
Truman's speech. Chomsky has conveniently quoted Rood, but
nonetheless asserts he has said something that no honest reading of
his essay actually says.
One can argue that the Warburg paraphrase is supportable, though
Chomsky's interpretation of it and the conclusions he draws from it,
like the last "call" in a game of Telephone, are utterly worthless,
unrecognizable distortions of the speech. Or so it appears to me --
no one has yet argued against this conclusion.
The following thread provides more detail:
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201180155.25764cb1%40posting.google.com)
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201181027.302e2c6f%40posting.google.com)
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f5414c)
The first link is a response to Dan Clore, in which I formulate the
case above, the second link quotes Chomsky's use of the paraphrase and
the Rood quotation, and the third is a transcription of the speech
Truman gave, which bears no resemblance to Chomsky's conclusion and is
not "impolitic", though it does bear some resemblance to Warburg's
paraphrase, as I argued in
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.21.0101061616200.8418-100000%40cardinal0.Stanford.EDU)
when I was still a Chomsky fan (from this one could quibble that the
paraphrase was not "fabricated", though it is clear that Chomsky's
conclusion was).
A far better example of dishonest scholarship is Chomsky's use of the
CIA demographic report on Cambodia.
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0203131818.54064db%40posting.google.com)
(http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/demcat.htm)
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0203131852.e691640%40posting.google.com)
The first link quotes Chomsky's use of the report, the second is a
link to a transcription of the report, and the third is my analysis.
- Nate
Joseph Michael Bay
>Josh Dougherty
>> Of course he has. The statement to which I replied was the
>> charge that Chomsky had "fabricated" it.
>I see so Chomsky did not fabricate the cite -- but instead
>cited real documents and attributed to those real documents
>statements that cannot be found in them.
>Sounds like fabrication to me. You are just splitting hairs.
That's splitting hairs? Fabrication is making something up.
What Chomsky did in _New Mandarins_ was to misattribute one
man's paraphrase of a quote as that quote (by the original
speaker). Now, misattributing a quote can be quite serious,
and one can make the argument that it's done with the intent
to deceive in some cases. That hasn't been shown in this case,
but Arthur Schlesinger, Jr says it's a "fabrication", which
is enough to satisfy our standards of evidence apparently.
>> Now the question is whether or not the quote in question was
>> "accurate". Those are two different questions.
>You sound like Clinton who first found it difficult to figure
>out what a sexual relation was, and then told us it depends on
>what the meaning of the word "is" is.
The distinction between fabrication and misattribution
is not really all that fine. One is making something
up and the other is saying Truman said such-and-such
when in fact Warburg said such-and-such, paraphrasing
Truman.
Nathan Folkert
jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in message news:<aqeeta$4j1$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>...
[snip]
The correct URL for the transcription of Truman's speech is:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f5414c%40posting.google.com
- Nate
James A. Donald
Oliver Kamm
> > > > > > > > Chomsky is on record as fabricating his source
> > > > > > > > material
Josh Dougherty
> > > > > > > lie with intent to slander.
Oliver Kamm
> > > > > > So the quotations Chomsky charged, in American
> > > > > > Power and the New Mandarins, President Truman with
> > > > > > having made were accurate, were they?
Josh Dougherty
> > > > > You've changed the question,
James A. Donald:
> > > > No he has not.
Josh Dougherty
> > > Of course he has. The statement to which I replied was
> > > the charge that Chomsky had "fabricated" it.
James A. Donald:
> > I see so Chomsky did not fabricate the cite -- but instead
> > cited real documents and attributed to those real documents
> > statements that cannot be found in them.
Josh Dougherty
> 1. That's a straw man 2. Even the staw man scenario does not
> show fabrication. If I saw quote X in the New York Times and
> mistakenly quoted it in my book as having come from a
> different New York Post article,
But that does not in remotest resemble what Chomsky does and
did What Chomsky did was seemingly quote Truman gloatingly
admitting to fearful crimes, when in fact Truman did not admit
to fearful crimes, not in the New York times, and not in the
New York post.
And that is what makes it a fabricated citation. Chomsky
claims Truman admitted dreadful crimes and evil purposes, and
seemingly cites seemingly respectable sources seemingly proving
Truman admitted, but Truman did not admit, and the citations
prove nothing at all.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
xqqTb1ZTqu9PUu4OyNlGsZEyhWCwqkiGEU0pzZgy
4EgZ0NRgHkAcqOIGtWQvB4UYxd9OhHd+VhIVmhvRI
James A. Donald
Josh Dougherty
> > > The statement to which I replied was the charge that
> > > Chomsky had "fabricated" it.
James A. Donald:
> > I see so Chomsky did not fabricate the cite -- but instead
> > cited real documents and attributed to those real documents
> > statements that cannot be found in them.
> >
> > Sounds like fabrication to me. You are just splitting
> > hairs.
Joseph Michael Bay
> That's splitting hairs? Fabrication is making something up.
> What Chomsky did in _New Mandarins_ was to misattribute one
> man's paraphrase of a quote as that quote (by the original
> speaker).
Chomsky quotes Truman as admitting to appalling crimes, when
Truman did not admit to appalling crimes.
That is not an error, it is a lie, a fabricated quotation.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
OJvXv9YcN7Mx2HQqx/gJjJ4wRVBdpHWz9VS9T+cs
4MPYQRWTWlYLXSKUCTIcOPvSjPGnTE412/hTbSBnm
Joseph Michael Bay
>Josh Dougherty
>> 1. That's a straw man 2. Even the staw man scenario does not
>> show fabrication. If I saw quote X in the New York Times and
>> mistakenly quoted it in my book as having come from a
>> different New York Post article,
>But that does not in remotest resemble what Chomsky does and
>did What Chomsky did was seemingly quote Truman gloatingly
>admitting to fearful crimes, when in fact Truman did not admit
>to fearful crimes, not in the New York times, and not in the
>New York post.
>And that is what makes it a fabricated citation. Chomsky
>claims Truman admitted dreadful crimes and evil purposes, and
>seemingly cites seemingly respectable sources seemingly proving
>Truman admitted, but Truman did not admit, and the citations
>prove nothing at all.
"Dreadful crimes"? Schlesinger's statement was that Chomsky
twice claimed that Truman had said: "All freedom is dependent
on freedom of enterprise", not "Ha ha ha! The fools shall
never know that I, Harry S. Truman, kidnapped and ate the
Lindbergh baby! Muahahahaha!" or something like that.
I wouldn't even call it an evil purpose, in itself. The
sentiment could be used to justify some awful things, but
that's probably true of most sentiments.
So again I'll write what Schlesinger says:
Chomsky twice claimed that Truman had said: "All freedom
is dependent on freedom of enterprise ..."
Compare that to what Truman said in his speech:
" Freedom of worship--freedom of speech freedom of enterprise.
It must be true that the first two of these freedoms are
related to the third. For, throughout history, freedom of
worship and freedom of speech have been most frequently
enjoyed in those societies that have accorded a considerable
measure of freedom to individual enterprise. "
I'm not sure how this is a case of Chomsky twisting Truman's
words here.
The speech is available at:
www.trumanlibrary.org/trumanpapers/pppus/1947/52.htm
I encourage people to read it.
Also, the version of emacs I'm using has apparently been
"upgraded" to assume I'm writing c++ code, which doesn't
like two adjacent slashes, and in fact refuses to let me
paste full URLS for this reason. Can anyone advise me on how
to deal with this "feature"?
Josh Dougherty
James, I think you must be talking about some other quote, or perhaps you
forgot to take your meds today, because I have no idea what in the world
you're talking about here. It has nothing to do with the quote in question.
Josh
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > And that is what makes it a fabricated citation. Chomsky
> > claims Truman admitted dreadful crimes and evil purposes,
> > and seemingly cites seemingly respectable sources seemingly
> > proving Truman admitted, but Truman did not admit, and the
> > citations prove nothing at all.
Joseph Michael Bay
> "Dreadful crimes"? Schlesinger's statement was that Chomsky
> twice claimed that Truman had said: "All freedom is dependent
> on freedom of enterprise
Chomsky claimed that Truman said: "The American system can
survive in America only if it becomes a world system.",
attributing Marxist doctrine to Truman.
That Truman said "all freedom is dependent on freedom of
enterprise" is merely a paraphrase rendered as a quotation, or
a mangled quotation, and I have done worse than that myself
many a time. Truman did indeed say something somewhat like
that, even if he did not quite say that in those words.
That Truman said "The American system can survive in America
only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
This lie is used, by Chomsky and others, to prove that the US
is imperially imposing capitalism on the world, and must,
because of the internal contradictions of capitalism, impose
its system on the world, must conquer the world, in order for
capitalism to expand until it must collapse, giving Truman's
words a meaning almost the opposite of what his words say.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
qhmLzjfW5OHAbSmlreL5ttaKfwXzGBlEmxJiNoTo
4AGVADk8ZPrbepLRp/7Fc1o5ptIqrZMEjwO4BU4Uv
James A. Donald
> > Chomsky claims Truman admitted dreadful crimes and evil
> > purposes, and seemingly cites seemingly respectable sources
> > seemingly proving Truman admitted, but Truman did not
> > admit, and the citations prove nothing at all.
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 03:25:59 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
> James, I think you must be talking about some other quote, or
> perhaps you forgot to take your meds today, because I have no
> idea what in the world you're talking about here. It has
> nothing to do with the quote in question.
Chomsky attributes to Truman words that can be reasonably
interpreted to indicate acceptance of the Leninist world view
that capitalism must conquer the third world in order to stave
off collapse.
In this he is not carelessly substituting a paraphrase in what
appears to the reader to be a direct quote, but substituting a
lie in what appears to be a direct quote.
This is not like leaving out ellipses, or giving the wrong page
number, or misattributing a citation, which we have all done.
Chomsky makes a drastic change in Truman's words so that those
words suit Chomsky's purpose better, and calls those words
Truman's.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
+OCrGvnpSbksHHSR3uF0Mqcod0+gIa5FlX41i73R
4RbLIDEW0MACfqq+ldQ7YDw5AbUwKFfd9bU+ca9Qe
Joseph Michael Bay
>Joseph Michael Bay
>> "Dreadful crimes"? Schlesinger's statement was that Chomsky
>> twice claimed that Truman had said: "All freedom is dependent
>> on freedom of enterprise
>Chomsky claimed that Truman said: "The American system can
>survive in America only if it becomes a world system.",
>attributing Marxist doctrine to Truman.
>That Truman said "all freedom is dependent on freedom of
>enterprise" is merely a paraphrase rendered as a quotation, or
>a mangled quotation, and I have done worse than that myself
>many a time. Truman did indeed say something somewhat like
>that, even if he did not quite say that in those words.
>That Truman said "The American system can survive in America
>only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
Nope, it's an accurate summation of the speech.
Truman says in the speech that free enterprise is part
and parcel of what makes us Americans, and that other
important freedoms are found where enterprise is most free.
Truman notes a trend towards planned economies in the
post-WWII world, and says that unless we act decisively,
that worldwide trend will continue -- and that the US will
succumb to them as well, which is exactly what we'd been
trying to get away from since the war. In other words,
our free enterprise system, unable to compete with planned
economies, will *become* a planned economy.
He then describes the International Trade Organization's
charter, which would limit the freedom of governments
to exercise control over international trade, which would
imply a free trade, or at least "freer" trade, system.
Warburg's paraphrase is entirely accurate and consistent
with the ideology and policy of the Truman administration
as described in that speech.
Now ...
>This lie is used, by Chomsky and others, to prove that the US
>is imperially imposing capitalism on the world, and must,
>because of the internal contradictions of capitalism, impose
>its system on the world, must conquer the world, in order for
>capitalism to expand until it must collapse, giving Truman's
>words a meaning almost the opposite of what his words say.
Chomsky's *use* of the speech, or the paraphrase thereof, is
not consistent with the intent of that speech. Truman was
speaking from a presumably deeply held belief that freedom
of enterprise was not only a useful system but a morally
superior one, that free enterprise was right and planned
economy was wrong, and that indeed it would be better for
the whole world to adopt our way of doing things.
Chomsky reads the speech from the point of view that
people collectively should have the power to make
economic decisions, that free enterprise empowers the
wealthy to further impoverish the poor, and thus his
take on the speech is of someone promoting the rather
sinister doctrine of exporting that system.
His interpretation of the speech, therefore, is not
what a person in agreement with Truman would think
after reading the speech. Chomsky's analysis is
informed by a different viewpoint from Truman's,
obviously, so the conclusions he draws from Truman's
stated goals and means to achieve them are going to
be different, which should be something of a no-brainer.
Nathan Folkert has said the the "real issue" is that
Chomsky's analysis is "utterly unsupported" by the
speech. I'd say that's a *different* issue. The
real issue at the moment is of the use of the quote
or paraphrase itself. First off, it is plainly not
"fabricated". It wasn't "fabricated" any of the
bazillions of times that accusation was brought up.
Were we not discussing Chomsky's supposed fabriaction
of source material? Yes, we were.
Secondly, on the different issue of the claim that
Chomsky was dishonest in his use of this quote, it
does not seem to me that he says Truman said that
he himself was some kind of imperialist, but rather
that his statements support that conclusion. One
may argue that the conclusion is not supported, or
even that his conclusion is total bullshit.
The fact is, though, that Mr. Kamm has been consistently
saying that Chomsky *fabricates* source material, not
that he draws the "wrong" conclusions from it. The
former is dishonest on Chomsky's part and worthy of
censure, while the latter is, at the worst, faulty
reasoning on Chomsky's part. Historians interpret
events differently, and obviously not all of these
mutually contradictory interpretations can be right,
nor would the same person agree with all of them.
I apologize for the length of this post; I didn't have
time to write a short one.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > That Truman said "The American system can survive in
> > America only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
Joseph Michael Bay
> Nope, it's an accurate summation of the speech.
>
> Truman says in the speech that free enterprise is part and
> parcel of what makes us Americans, and that other important
> freedoms are found where enterprise is most free.
>
> Truman notes a trend towards planned economies in the
> post-WWII world, and says that unless we act decisively, that
> worldwide trend will continue -- and that the US will succumb
> to them as well, which is exactly what we'd been trying to
> get away from since the war. In other words, our free
> enterprise system, unable to compete with planned economies,
> will *become* a planned economy.
Your summary is accurate except for one thing that makes it a
total lie: "unable to compete". Chomsky's spin, and the spin
you hint at is that Truman's words are a startling and
revealing confession, since he acknowledges the inferiority and
doomed nature of capitalism -- which quite obviously Truman
does not.
What Truman said was
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f5414c%40posting.google.com
: : It may cut down its purchases of another country's
: : goods, by raising its tariffs or imposing an
: : embargo or a system of quotas on imports. And when
: : it does this, some producer, in the other country,
: : will find the door to his market suddenly slammed
: : and bolted in his face.
: :
: : [...]
: :
: : [...] the producer gets angry, just as you or I
: : would get angry if such a thing were done to us.
: : Profits disappear; workers are dismissed. The
: : producer feels that he has been wronged, without
: : warning and without reason. He appeals to his
: : government for action. His government retaliates,
: : and another round of tariff boosts, embargoes,
: : quotas, and subsidies is under way. This is
: : economic war. In such a war nobody wins.
: :
: : [...]
: : [...] nobody won the last economic war. As each
: : battle of the economic war of the thirties was
: : fought, the inevitable tragic result became more
: : and more apparent. From the tariff policy of
: : Hawley and Smoot, the world went on to Ottawa and
: : the system of imperial preferences, from Ottawa to
: : the kind of elaborate and detailed restrictions
: : adopted by Nazi Germany. Nations strangled normal
: : trade and discriminated against their neighbors,
: : all around the world.
: :
: : Who among their peoples were the gainers? Not the
: : depositors who lost their savings in the failure of
: : the banks. Not the farmers who lost their farms.
: : Not the millions who walked the streets looking for
: : work.
There is an enormous difference between those words, and
Chomsky's and your account of those words.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
/McatywLQAj8VN9qQck3uc3hndeJ6lsKHh6i/5qz
4jr1aSJHOW1RYs4574Oei5qtgQvnLB8Wncg5GxdUy
Joseph Michael Bay
>James A. Donald
>> > That Truman said "The American system can survive in
>> > America only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
>Joseph Michael Bay
>> Nope, it's an accurate summation of the speech.
>> Truman says in the speech that free enterprise is part and
>> parcel of what makes us Americans, and that other important
>> freedoms are found where enterprise is most free.
>> Truman notes a trend towards planned economies in the
>> post-WWII world, and says that unless we act decisively, that
>> worldwide trend will continue -- and that the US will succumb
>> to them as well, which is exactly what we'd been trying to
>> get away from since the war. In other words, our free
>> enterprise system, unable to compete with planned economies,
>> will *become* a planned economy.
>Your summary is accurate except for one thing that makes it a
>total lie: "unable to compete".
Normally the phrase "in other words" would be taken to mean
that those are, in fact, other words from Truman's, no?
>Chomsky's spin, and the spin
>you hint at is that Truman's words are a startling and
>revealing confession, since he acknowledges the inferiority and
>doomed nature of capitalism -- which quite obviously Truman
>does not.
Quite obviously. I had believed I'd addressed this adequately,
but I fear I did not, so I'll get to it after this --
>: : [...]
>: : [...]
Not so much as you may think. Truman's argument is largely
that planned economies will drive out free economies; not
of course because they are better at improving life for
the average person but much in the same sense that "bad
money drives out good" or what have you. But whatever
the reason, Truman says that if the trend toward central
planning is not reversed, the government of the US will
be under pressure to adopt the policies of a planned
economy.
I really didn't think I was giving the impression that
Truman was "acknowledging" the "doomed nature" of
capitalism, particularly as I stated that I think Truman
really believed in the ability of free enterprise to
deliver the goods, as it were. I suppose if you want
to read that into my writing you're free to do so, as
long as you present it as your analysis of my post
and not as my actual comments.
More generally, the idea that system A is endangered
by system B does not imply that system A is "inferior"
to system B -- basic economics and game theory are
chock full of examples of that -- and I certainly don't
think that imposing all manner of economic protectonism
is superior to free *and fair* trade among nations.
Nathan Folkert
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
[snip]
> >That Truman said "The American system can survive in America
> >only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
>
> Nope, it's an accurate summation of the speech.
Truman does not argue that the American system can survive in America
only if it becomes a world system.
He argued that if imperialists, communists, and fascists capable of
waging economic warfare through intervention in their own economies
dominated the world system (as was the current trend), then the
American government may be tempted to use the same controls to
retaliate and protect American interests.
While Truman certainly would smile on other states adopting the
American system, which he sees as the road to peace and prosperity, he
does not argue that the world must adopt the American system or else
the American way is doomed.
Though the paraphrase might vaguely resemble Truman's argument, the
meaning attributed to it cannot be that the United States must
continually expand its markets or else fall to stagnation and
totalitarianism, because this is simply not a reasonable
interpretation of Truman's words.
[snip]
> Chomsky reads the speech from the point of view that
> people collectively should have the power to make
> economic decisions, that free enterprise empowers the
> wealthy to further impoverish the poor, and thus his
> take on the speech is of someone promoting the rather
> sinister doctrine of exporting that system.
I suspect this is the case, but let us be clear on what is being said,
rather than hide behind euphemisms. Truman is condemning fascism,
imperialism, and communism, and advocating an economy free of
politicized direction by the state, which does not preclude any kind
of voluntary collective enterprises.
A fundamental axiom of anarchism (and, indeed, of liberalism) is that
state control necessarily hurts voluntary collective decision-making.
If your assumption is correct, and it probably is, it is entirely
unsurprising that Chomsky, considering his other views, would
wholeheartedly reject this in favor of a world of corporatism and
state slavery, where the only conceivable "collective" action is
action by the state.
[snip]
- Nate
James A. Donald
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:50:57 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
> Sorry if I'm way off on this one, but wasn't the quote in
> question attributable to James Warburg, who was paraphrasing
> Truman? The attribution is corrected in printings after the
> first.
There are two issues here.
One is that Chomsky confidently attributes those words as a
quote of Truman, when in fact his indirect chain of citations
gives him no good reason to suppose that Truman uttered those
words, and in fact Truman did not utter those words.
The other is what do those words mean in the context provided
by Chomsky?
I have assumed, without concrete evidence, that the context is
the usual Chomsky context (a capitalist conspiracy to dominate
the world) an assumption almost as dangerous as that made by
Chomsky. I will check out this assumption, and should not
have posted so much without checking out this assumption. In
posting as if I had confident knowledge of this assumption, I
misled the reader.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
WnewpaAdt0dIZK4uYJKua2pDmhy8ZVRKbAFd2Mz1
4b8mVFhn8biSqozIIPt+75uGU0an05Az+4yblt4kd
Joseph Michael Bay
>jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in message news:<aqhaug$je2$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>...
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>[snip]
>> >That Truman said "The American system can survive in America
>> >only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
>>
>> Nope, it's an accurate summation of the speech.
>Truman does not argue that the American system can survive in America
>only if it becomes a world system.
>He argued that if imperialists, communists, and fascists capable of
>waging economic warfare through intervention in their own economies
>dominated the world system (as was the current trend), then the
>American government may be tempted to use the same controls to
>retaliate and protect American interests.
Truman actually says "under pressure", which I think implies
coercion by forces more so than temptation. He then outlines
the way to prevent this pressure from causing the US to adopt
such controls, namely the charter of the ITO. Presumably the
charter does not require business leaders to wear cowboy hats,
smoke cigars, and wolf whistle at their secretaries, but to
the extent that free enterprise, or rather "non-interference"
in markets by governments, is "the American system" it stipulates
that other countries adopt the American system by limiting their
freedom to regulate foreign trade.
>While Truman certainly would smile on other states adopting the
>American system, which he sees as the road to peace and prosperity, he
>does not argue that the world must adopt the American system or else
>the American way is doomed.
Well, he certainly seems to feel it's important and urgent
that other countries adopt that economic model.
>Though the paraphrase might vaguely resemble Truman's argument, the
>meaning attributed to it cannot be that the United States must
>continually expand its markets or else fall to stagnation and
>totalitarianism, because this is simply not a reasonable
>interpretation of Truman's words.
Which is a completely different matter from the accusation
that source material was fabricated, and which also is
dependent on the mindset of the interpretor.
>[snip]
>> Chomsky reads the speech from the point of view that
>> people collectively should have the power to make
>> economic decisions, that free enterprise empowers the
>> wealthy to further impoverish the poor, and thus his
>> take on the speech is of someone promoting the rather
>> sinister doctrine of exporting that system.
>I suspect this is the case, but let us be clear on what is being said,
>rather than hide behind euphemisms. Truman is condemning fascism,
>imperialism, and communism, and advocating an economy free of
>politicized direction by the state, which does not preclude any kind
>of voluntary collective enterprises.
The ITO included some ability for countries to deal with
unfair labor conditions, although of course it was not
implemented. GATT, which was implemented, included no such
provisions. The International Labor Organization, intended
to defend labor standards, has no ability to do so aside from
its "moral authority", whatever good that does.
>A fundamental axiom of anarchism (and, indeed, of liberalism) is that
>state control necessarily hurts voluntary collective decision-making.
>If your assumption is correct, and it probably is, it is entirely
>unsurprising that Chomsky, considering his other views, would
>wholeheartedly reject this in favor of a world of corporatism and
>state slavery, where the only conceivable "collective" action is
>action by the state.
>[snip]
That's true when "state control" is distinct from a "voluntary
collective". In a democratic state, as opposed to an autocratic,
Fascist, Communist, or whatever sort of authoritarian state,
that's not the case.
Unfortunately Chomsky has not shown himself to be very good
at distinguishing those cases, and has given support to
movements that were authoritarian, often horribly so, in
nature. People moved by desirable and humane ideals have
been betrayed by movements throughout history, and this will
probably always be the case.
The value of governmental power is, of course, dependent
on the actual responsibility of that government toward
the people. The same is true for most kinds of power, such
as the power of economic giants.
Josh Dougherty
> --
> > > Chomsky claims Truman admitted dreadful crimes and evil
> > > purposes, and seemingly cites seemingly respectable sources
> > > seemingly proving Truman admitted, but Truman did not
> > > admit, and the citations prove nothing at all.
>
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 03:25:59 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
> > James, I think you must be talking about some other quote, or
> > perhaps you forgot to take your meds today, because I have no
> > idea what in the world you're talking about here. It has
> > nothing to do with the quote in question.
>
> Chomsky attributes to Truman words that can be reasonably
> interpreted to indicate acceptance of the Leninist world view
> that capitalism must conquer the third world in order to stave
> off collapse.
That is basically what he is saying in the speech, and a reasonable
interperetation. Truman would consider such "conquering" to be a good thing
for America and for everyone else. Chomsky obviously views it differently,
and thus offers a different interperetation than would Truman as to what
this means in moral terms. But Truman clearly suggests that if other
nations do not adopt "the pattern of international trade that is most
conducive to freedom of enterprise", then the American system of "free
enterprise" could be in danger of succumbing to pressures toward central
planning, in effect no longer being a "free enterprise" capitalist system.
"Collapse" is perhaps not the correct word to use. He's not suggesting a
determinist view that America's capitalist economy will "collapse" but that
it will be forced to change its whole nature and move towards government
planning and away from "free enterprise", which Truman suggests is the
foundation of all other freedoms:
"[government planned economy] was the pattern of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. Unless we act, and
act decisively, it will be the pattern of the next century."
He is clearly saying here that the American capitalist system as we know it
will be in danger unless "we act, and act decisively". So, what does he
mean by "act"? Well, what is the ITO about? It's about requiring its
member countries to abide by the principles of free enterprise -- to
"confine such [government] controls to exceptional cases, in the immediate
future, and to abandon them entirely as soon as they can be abandoned". So,
the whole goal is to require that other nations (and hopefully all nations)
adopt a "free enterprise" system, the American system, and limit the freedom
of governments to engage in central planning.
Truman also says:
"If this trend is not reversed, the Government of the United States will be
under pressure, sooner or later, to use these same devices [government
planning and controls] to fight for markets and for raw materials." In
effect, he is saying that if the trend towards planned economies around the
world is not reversed, the American system as we know it will be doomed, and
itself will wind up becoming a planned economy sooner or later. He then
insists that we must "act, and act decisively" to prevent this because, as
he says, freedom of enterprise is essential for the security of other
freedoms.
In fact, our very own Nathan Folkert made this argument very well here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.4.
21.0101061616200.8418-100000%40cardinal0.Stanford.EDU&rnum=4
So, in my view, the paraphrase in question is accurate.
> In this he is not carelessly substituting a paraphrase in what
> appears to the reader to be a direct quote, but substituting a
> lie in what appears to be a direct quote.
Chomsky states that he is quoting Warburg's paraphrase of Truman. Moreover,
Warburg's paraphrase is not a "lie". It is a very accurate summation of the
sentiments of the speech.
> This is not like leaving out ellipses, or giving the wrong page
> number, or misattributing a citation, which we have all done.
> Chomsky makes a drastic change in Truman's words
Chomsky didn't make any change in Truman's words. Warburg wrote a
paraphrased summation of the speech, and a quite accurate one.
> so that those words suit Chomsky's purpose better, and calls those words
> Truman's.
He attributes the words to Warburg. He didn't credit Warburg in the first
edition of the book in 1969, but this was corrected shortly thereafter in
the second printing, and has been correctly attributed ever since.
Unless you assume that Chomsky intentionally did not credit Warburg in the
first edition, hoping that he could deceive people and no one would notice,
then this is exactly like "leaving out ellipses, or giving the wrong page
number, or misattributing a citation".
And, if you are suggesting that his intent was to deceive by not crediting
Warburg and thinking that no one would notice, which seems highly unlikely
to me, then you would need to provide some "evidence" to show your basis for
that assumption.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
news:4b923300.02110...@posting.google.com...
> jm...@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in message
news:<aqhaug$je2$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>...
> > James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >That Truman said "The American system can survive in America
> > >only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
> >
> > Nope, it's an accurate summation of the speech.
>
> Truman does not argue that the American system can survive in America
> only if it becomes a world system.
So now you're not only arguing that Chomsky's conclusions are wrong, but
you're also now arguing that the paraphrase is erroneous. You've
confidently argued the exact opposite on numerous occasions.
In the thread "Chomsky and the Nazis" in a post on July 31, 2001, Nathan
says:
"But regardless of what conclusions one draws from Truman's speech at
Baylor, it is obvious to anyone reading the speech that Truman indeed makes
the arguments outlined in the Warburg paraphrase."
In the same thread on Aug 4, 2001 he writes:
"The fact is, [Truman] made all of the arguments given in the paraphrase in
his speech."
In the thread "Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Timothy Leary
.mp3files" in a post on July 23, 2001 he writes:
"I've read the speech and know full well that this was an accurate
paraphrase"
In the same thread on July 22, 2001 he writes:
"it was Warburg's paraphrase, which was accurate despite both your and
Schlesinger's denials."
In the same thread on July 20, 2001 he writes:
"Truman made all of the points outlined in the paraphrase in his Baylor
speech"
In the same thread on July 19, 2001, Nathan says that the paraphrase of
Truman's speech was:
"as anyone who's read the Baylor speech knows, a reasonably accurate
paraphrase of what he actually said." The obvious accuracy of the
paraphrase is so obvious to Nathan here that indeed "anyone who's read" the
speech must agree.
In the thread "Chomsky's fight for Truth" in a post on January 6, 2001
Nathan says:
"Chomsky wasn't using a spurious quotation of Truman. He was referring to a
paraphrase by Warburg which was more or less correct in its characterization
of what Truman said in his 1947 speech at Baylor." Nathan also seemed to
think here that anyone with at least a "rudimentary knowledge of politics"
would agree.
In the thread "Chomsky commentary in the LA Times (August 13, 2001)" in a
post on August 25, 2001 Nathan says:
"The paraphrase is accurate"
And we could go on and on.
Initially Nathan, you were in agreement with the paraphrase and also i
assume with Chomsky's conclusions more or less. Then you of course changed
your tune on Chomsky and his interperetations, but you remained in agreement
with the accuracy of the paraphrase.:
"I agree with you (and disagree with Oliver Kamm) that the paraphrase was
more or less accurate.....however, the way in which the paraphrase was used
by Chomsky was quite inaccurate." - January 18, 2002
But now you've made the full turn here and now say that the paraphrase too
isn't accurate afterall. Apparently when opinions of Chomsky change, so,
eventually, does the "obvious" accuracy (to anyone with a rudimentary
knowledge of politics who's read them) of other people's words that Chomsky
has quoted.
> He argued that if imperialists, communists, and fascists capable of
> waging economic warfare through intervention in their own economies
a government "intervening" in its own economy is "economic warfare"?
> dominated the world system (as was the current trend), then the
> American government may be tempted to use the same controls to
> retaliate and protect American interests.
So obviously a "free enterprise" American style economy must dominate the
world system instead. Obviously he is arguing that the American system can
only survive in America if it does become a world system, the dominant world
system at least. I think your summary confirms this quite well.
> While Truman certainly would smile on other states adopting the
> American system, which he sees as the road to peace and prosperity, he
> does not argue that the world must adopt the American system or else
> the American way is doomed.
Clearly he does. And I think you've outlined it above.
Also, just to clarify for the record, and regardless of what you think of
Chomsky's conclusions or anything else, you do still wholeheartedly disagree
with the proposition that Chomsky had "fabricated" the quote or his source
material in this instance, and that Oliver Kamm is knowingly lying about
this correct?
Josh
Josh Dougherty
news:4b923300.02110...@posting.google.com...
news:<aqhaug$je2$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>...
> > James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >That Truman said "The American system can survive in America
> > >only if it becomes a world system." is a lie.
> >
> > Nope, it's an accurate summation of the speech.
>
> Truman does not argue that the American system can survive in America
> only if it becomes a world system.
So now you're not only arguing that Chomsky's conclusions are wrong, but
paraphrase is so clear to Nathan here that indeed "anyone who's read" the
speech must agree.
In the thread "Chomsky's fight for Truth" in a post on January 6, 2001
Nathan says:
"Chomsky wasn't using a spurious quotation of Truman. He was referring to a
paraphrase by Warburg which was more or less correct in its characterization
of what Truman said in his 1947 speech at Baylor." Nathan also seemed to
think here that anyone with at least a "rudimentary knowledge of politics"
would agree.
In the thread "Chomsky commentary in the LA Times (August 13, 2001)" in a
post on August 25, 2001 Nathan says:
"The paraphrase is accurate"
And we could go on and on.
Initially Nathan, you were in agreement with the paraphrase and also i
assume with Chomsky's conclusions more or less. Then you of course changed
your tune on Chomsky and his interperetations, but you remained in agreement
with the accuracy of the paraphrase.:
"I agree with you (and disagree with Oliver Kamm) that the paraphrase was
more or less accurate.....however, the way in which the paraphrase was used
by Chomsky was quite inaccurate." - January 18, 2002
But now you've made the full turn here and now say that the paraphrase too
isn't accurate afterall. Apparently when opinions of Chomsky change, so,
eventually, does the "obvious" accuracy (to anyone with a rudimentary
knowledge of politics who's read them) of other people's words that Chomsky
has quoted.
> He argued that if imperialists, communists, and fascists capable of
> waging economic warfare through intervention in their own economies
a government "intervening" in its own economy is "economic warfare"?
> dominated the world system (as was the current trend), then the
> American government may be tempted to use the same controls to
> retaliate and protect American interests.
So obviously a "free enterprise" American style economy must dominate the
world system instead. Obviously he is arguing that the American system can
only survive in America if it does become a world system, the dominant world
system at least. I think your summary confirms this quite well.
> While Truman certainly would smile on other states adopting the
> American system, which he sees as the road to peace and prosperity, he
> does not argue that the world must adopt the American system or else
> the American way is doomed.
Clearly he does. And I think you've outlined it above.
James A. Donald
Joseph Michael Bay
> Truman's argument is largely that planned economies will
> drive out free economies; not of course because they are
> better at improving life for the average person but much in
> the same sense that "bad money drives out good" or what have
> you. But whatever the reason, Truman says that if the trend
> toward central planning is not reversed, the government of
> the US will be under pressure to adopt the policies of a
> planned economy.
But Chomsky is not citing Truman as evidence that hurtful
anticapitalist economic practices tend to disrupt good
capitalistic practices, but as evidence that Truman,
supposedly commander in Chief of Capitalism, accepts the
communist account of capitalism.
Chomsky attributes to Truman the position that capitalism needs
ever expanding external markets, while in fact Truman is saying
that closing markets hurts people, hurts feelings, and leads
those excluded to do hurtful things right back, a very
different positon.
In "American Power and the New Mandarins" chapter, Chomsky
argues that US policy in Asia is the military conquest of
markets, and in support of that claim attributes to Truman a
fictitious quote:
Chomsky wrote, on page 282 of "American power and the New
Mandarins"
: : It has been a long-standing belief, expressed by
: : Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson, and many
: : others, that we can escape recurrent economic
: : stagnation or internal regimentation only with ever
: : expanding markets. These words recall the
: : characteristically direct formulations of Harry
: : Truman, who proclaimed in 1947 that “all freedom is
: : dependent on freedom of enterprise. . . . The whole
: : world should adopt the American system. . . . The
: : American system can survive in America only if it
: : becomes a world system. [82]"
In fact Truman said nothing of the kind and the citation
provides no evidence that he said anything of the kind Citation
82 leads to another commie, quoting someone else -- a chain of
citation that goes for I know not how far.
The chain of citations attributes these words to Truman's
speech, at which he said the following:
Chomsky's account of those words.. Truman's words reject
Leninist ideology, Chomsky's account of those words attribute
to Truman acceptance and admission of the truth of Leninist
ideology.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9q95ORtvUlt59xHYaVbqIvj/g41lJbKzYJ8YRwAw
4sD/WC8EZwE5YR83gZpxRJlg6P82iwoR6Wcjm8jhK
James A. Donald
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:47:32 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
> Truman actually says "under pressure", which I think implies
> coercion by forces more so than temptation.
We have Chomsky's account of Truman's words in front of us, and
we have Truman's words in front of us.
Truman did not say what Chomsky says he said, and he meant the
opposite of what Chomsky says he meant.
Chomsky lying about Truman:
Chomsky wrote, on page 282 of "American power and the New
Mandarins"
: : It has been a long-standing belief, expressed by
: : Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson, and many
: : others, that we can escape recurrent economic
: : stagnation or internal regimentation only with ever
: : expanding markets. These words recall the
: : characteristically direct formulations of Harry
: : Truman, who proclaimed in 1947 that "all freedom is
: : dependent on freedom of enterprise. . . . The whole
: : world should adopt the American system. . . . The
: : American system can survive in America only if it
: : becomes a world system. [82]"
Truman did not say those words, and the speech referenced in
citation 82 did not suggest that capitalism or the US needs
ever expanding external markets.
Truman did not say what Chomsky claimed he said, and he did not
mean what Chomsky claimed he meant.
Citation 82 references someone, who references someone else, a
chain of citations that supposedly describes Truman's speech
Nathan Folkert had made Truman's speech available at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f541
4c%40posting.google.com
It does not contain the words Chomsky attributes to Truman, nor
the meaning that Chomsky attributes to Truman.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Hd10xS4Dyt0zYys1k7uLg2mRdDrYNOTGSTf3yFxl
4jGKp2aDS+CVYB/E0axp5mSTXMBefpbgxns/cGMJ+
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Chomsky attributes to Truman words that can be reasonably
> > interpreted to indicate acceptance of the Leninist world view
> > that capitalism must conquer the third world in order to stave
> > off collapse.
Josh Dougherty
> That is basically what he is saying in the speech, and a reasonable
> interperetation.
Liar
What Truman said is available at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f5414c%40posting.google.com
Todd Reashore
extremely intelligent author of: "Voltaire's Bastards", is
an intellect, that while very supportive of democracy,
is none the less, very critical of the abuse in political/
business/capitalist relationships.
He has not been vocally critical per say, leaving that to his
writings. Even more so since his journalistic wife became
Canada's Governor General (Queens Representative)
I would love to see him and Chomsky collaberate in any medium.
Any one here read Voltaire's Bastards ?
regards......todd
of
"Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3dc3e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> As far as I can see Chomsky is far and away the most knowledgeable,
> articulate, and effective critic of his type.
>
> For me he articulates much of my anger and concern about hypocrisy in the
> world. But he's not going to be around for ever. Who else is there who
> writes along the same lines? To coin a cliche who do you think will pick
up
> the baton when he passes it on?
>
>
>
> --
> Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the
> election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go
to
> jail. That's democracy for you.
> Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir
>
>
Josh Dougherty
> On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 23:24:55 GMT, ""
> James A. Donald
> > > Chomsky attributes to Truman words that can be reasonably
> > > interpreted to indicate acceptance of the Leninist world view
> > > that capitalism must conquer the third world in order to stave
> > > off collapse.
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > That is basically what he is saying in the speech, and a reasonable
> > interperetation.
>
> Liar
What have I "lied" about James? I believe the paraphrase is accurate. You
don't. I also believe your reasoning is flawed. You don't. Fine. That
doesn't make me a "liar". A lie is when someone accuses a writer of
"fabricating" a quote or source material when that person knows full well
that the accusation is totally false. What we have here is a simple
disagreement over interperetation. I've explained my reasons and you
respond by calling me a "liar".
>
> What Truman said is available at
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f5414c%40posting.
google.com
I've already read the speech, and I believe Warburg's paraphrase is
accurate.
Josh
Joseph Michael Bay
> --
>On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:47:32 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
>(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
>> Truman actually says "under pressure", which I think implies
>> coercion by forces more so than temptation.
>We have Chomsky's account of Truman's words in front of us, and
>we have Truman's words in front of us.
Right, I read "under pressure" in the speech itself, which
I read thanks largely to Nathan.
>Truman did not say what Chomsky says he said, and he meant the
>opposite of what Chomsky says he meant.
So Truman's speech means that free enterprise should only
be practiced by the United States, while other countries
should nationalize the holy hell out of everything. Sure.
The requirement for expanding markets for the US to escape
economic stagnation or regimentation is attributed to
"Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson, and many others,"
not, as has been argued here, to Truman.
>Chomsky lying about Truman:
>Chomsky wrote, on page 282 of "American power and the New
>Mandarins"
>: : It has been a long-standing belief, expressed by
>: : Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson, and many
>: : others, that we can escape recurrent economic
>: : stagnation or internal regimentation only with ever
>: : expanding markets.
Indeed, I just thought I'd mention that.
>: : These words recall the
>: : characteristically direct formulations of Harry
>: : Truman, who proclaimed in 1947 that "all freedom is
>: : dependent on freedom of enterprise. . . . The whole
>: : world should adopt the American system. . . . The
>: : American system can survive in America only if it
>: : becomes a world system. [82]"
>Truman did not say those words, and the speech referenced in
>citation 82 did not suggest that capitalism or the US needs
>ever expanding external markets.
Does the part attributed to Truman mention "ever expanding
external markets"? No? Then why is it important to note
that Truman didn't say that?
>Truman did not say what Chomsky claimed he said, and he did not
>mean what Chomsky claimed he meant.
Well, I suppose that's what makes it a paraphrase, although
I don't agree with you on it being different from what Truman
meant. Actually, neither of us is likely to change his mind
on this based on this back-and-forth, but what the hell? You've
been able to maintain the claim that the citation is "fabricated"
only by using a definition of "fabricated" that means exactly
what you want it to mean, and we disagree on the interpretation
of the Warburg paraphrase.
Josh Dougherty
As to this point Nathan, I agree with you to a point. The speech does not
specifically say ever that America's makets must be in a permanent state of
expansion, per se. It more says that the American system should be the
dominant
one, America should have free access to all markets, countries that don't
follow the model we like are thereby being hostile and blocking "peace", and
that we must act to move the world towards "free market" economies that
would "cooperate" with
the US and other market economies (by adopting the American system
themselves).
In my view, it's not such a leap to reference the speech in the context
Chomsky does, even though it doesn't specifically propose "ever expanding
markets" as a necessity per se. It does however propose that closed or
government
regulated markets should be pushed open to US economic penetration, and
thereby Truman certainly is arguing for "expanding" markets, and that the
"American way" would be in danger without them. But, it doesn't say that a
constant state of expansion is required. Presumably when all the
world follows our proposed model (presumably with the US in the driver's
seat), we'll have "peace and freedom", even though markets would no longer
be "expanding". From the time of the '47 speech, that's quite a lot of
"expanding" to do, and might seem like an eternity before "peace" is
acheived by the world adhering to the American system, but no, it's not
necessarily indicated as "ever expanding" per se.
Truman says:
"We are doing everything within our power to foster international
cooperation. We have dedicated ourselves to its success."
and
"But some among us do not fully realize what we must do to carry out this
policy. There still are those who seem to believe that we can confine our
cooperation with other countries to political relationships; that we need
not cooperate where economic questions are involved."
and
"Our foreign relations, political and economic, are indivisible. We cannot
say that we are willing to cooperate in the one field and are unwilling to
cooperate in the other."
From all this, it does not seem to me much of a leap at all to interperet
all this, and the speech as a whole, in an "imperial" framework. Since
"economic" and "political" are
"indivisible", then countries who are not "cooperative" with the US
economically, iow that don't follow the US system, are thereby also
uncooperative politically, and, unless they change their economy to an
American model that US "producers" can penetrate, such a country must be
considered as
hostile and blockers of "peace and freedom".
Thereby, no matter how friendly a country like the USSR might have tried to
be for
instance, unless they "cooperate" economically (ie: adopt the American
system) they must still be held as the enemy.
Truman, in the speech, is advocating the ITO as a means for accomplishing
this. Hopefully
more and more nations will be led to join the organization and thereby
accept it's market-capitalist requirements. So, Truman hopes that other
nations will begin economically "cooperating" with the US (adopting the
American system) through diplomatic
means and contractual obligations of a trade organization.
Left unsaid is how nations that do not wish to join, and have not begun
"cooperating" by this means will be dealt with. Since these nations are
obviously blocking "peace and freedom" and engaging in "economic warfare"
that, as Truman says, endangers the American system by their very nature of
being
"uncooperative" with the US economically, it would seem to me that those
countries must be the held as the enemy regardless of what they do
politically or otherwise. I would assume that war (cold or hot) and
hostility with those nations whose governments insist on "retaining
unlimited freedom to commit
acts of economic aggression" would be perfectly justified in order to
protect the
"American way" and the "peace and freedom" of "producers" everywhere, simply
on the basis of their "non-cooperation" with the US economically (ie: their
non-adherence to the American system).
So, I think I can agree with your point to a degree. The point about the
American system requiring a state of constantly expanding markets is not put
forth directly in the speech, with the problem being the "constantly"
aspect. The speech does argue that open markets must expand from their
current state, and presumably continue expanding until all countries adopt
them (for the sake of "peace" and "freedom"), but it does not draw a link to
a requirement for a state of constant expansion. But, I do not believe the
connection is such a leap, nor is the use of the speech in an imperialist
context a stretch IMO.
Josh
James A. Donald
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:26:06 -0800, James A. Donald
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> Chomsky wrote, on page 282 of "American power and the New
> Mandarins"
That should of course have read page 268. Chomsky repeats a similar
lie on page 319
>
> : : It has been a long-standing belief, expressed by
> : : Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson, and many
> : : others, that we can escape recurrent economic
> : : stagnation or internal regimentation only with ever
> : : expanding markets. These words recall the
> : : characteristically direct formulations of Harry
> : : Truman, who proclaimed in 1947 that "all freedom is
> : : dependent on freedom of enterprise. . . . The whole
> : : world should adopt the American system. . . . The
> : : American system can survive in America only if it
> : : becomes a world system. [82]"
>
> Truman did not say those words, and the speech referenced in
> citation 82 did not suggest that capitalism or the US needs
> ever expanding external markets.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4AfAtHUcTglY4iwrxxE3iEkeTXAP+iPpBrMCgqCd
4LNNn4kt110Sw4jI3cR5V91o1e1Gcl7cXvMfMB67L
James A. Donald
Joseph Michael Bay:
> > > Truman actually says "under pressure", which I think
> > > implies coercion by forces more so than temptation.
James A. Donald:
> >We have Chomsky's account of Truman's words in front of us,
> >and we have Truman's words in front of us.
Joseph Michael Bay:
> Right, I read "under pressure" in the speech itself, which I
> read thanks largely to Nathan.
You also read a context, which does not support the very large
interpretation you place on this very small sentence fragment.
> The requirement for expanding markets for the US to escape
> economic stagnation or regimentation is attributed to
> "Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson, and many others,"
> not, as has been argued here, to Truman.
Chomsky is arguing Leninism, arguing that capitalism requires
ever expanding imperialism in order to stave off the much
predicted collapse due to internal contradictions, and cites
Truman in support of that interpretation. But Truman's actual
words do not support that interpretation.
> Does the part attributed to Truman mention "ever expanding
> external markets"?
In the context, Chomsky gives the appearance that that is what
Truman means.
The words are not Truman's and the meaning is not Truman's.
If these words were given as a paraphrase, and that paraphrase
appeared in a different context, then in some contexts, that
paraphrase would convey a meaning similar to that of Truman's
speech. But in the context of "Amercian power and the new
mandarins", these are neither Truman's words, nor a valid
paraphrase of Truman's words. In Chomsky's context these words
convey a meaning violently contrary to the meaning of Truman's
speech.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
RMRiyC4r7TjlvbSJaeYaillKJsL8/j5EBzz/0TYV
4plqanDqbY6pQRZGUMVxE0jXRB9Gv1uV6Rdm4Si8b
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > > > Chomsky attributes to Truman words that can be
> > > > reasonably interpreted to indicate acceptance of the
> > > > Leninist world view that capitalism must conquer the
> > > > third world in order to stave off collapse.
Josh Dougherty
> > > That is basically what he is saying in the speech, and a
> > > reasonable interperetation.
James A. Donald:
> > Liar
Josh Dougherty
> What have I "lied" about James?
You, like Chomsky, lied about the content of Truman's speech.
Truman's speech is inconsistent with the Leninist world view it
is cited to support.
You cite it to support Leninism above, and Chomsky cites it to
support Leninism on page 268 and page 319 of "American power
and the New Mandarins"
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
bXKr4A9h808d7H6CG4nnQZmGxPd0FERO45kkrv5u
4nMvz0EEHIYhKjXiZyIctyzEEWmT6tgZI80Tn1n1s
James A. Donald
"Nathan Folkert"
> > The real issue is not that Chomsky misattributed a quote to
> > Truman -- after all, he corrected it in a later printing of
> > his book, and everybody makes that kind of mistake. The
> > real issue is how Chomsky uses Warburg's paraphrase to
> > arrive at a conclusion that is utterly unsupported by the
> > actual text of Truman's speech. While he has corrected the
> > attribution, Chomsky has never corrected his use of the
> > paraphrase.
> >
> > Schlesinger attacked what he called the "Open Door" school
> > of historians, who he accused of using sloppy scholarship
> > to support a kind of neo-Leninist economic theory of
> > American imperialism. This is exactly the use to which
> > Chomsky put the Warburg paraphrase.
> >
> > Chomsky took his interpretation of Warburg's paraphrase of
> > Truman as well as a less covert (he quotes it directly in
> > APNM) distortion of a defense strategy paper by Harold Rood
> > and used them to conclude that the ruling classes of
> > America desired an eternally expanding American Empire.
> >
> > This is, of course, total bullshit -- neither Truman nor
> > Rood said anything of the sort.
Josh Dougherty
> As to this point Nathan, I agree with you to a point. The
> speech does not specifically say ever that America's makets
> must be in a permanent state of expansion, per se. It more
> says that the American system should be the dominant one,
> America should have free access to all markets, countries
> that don't follow the model we like are thereby being hostile
> and blocking "peace", and that we must act to move the world
> towards "free market" economies that would "cooperate" with
> the US and other market economies (by adopting the American
> system themselves).
>
> In my view, it's not such a leap to reference the speech in
> the context Chomsky does
In Truman's speech, he suggests that to respond to disruption
of trade with disruption of trade is irrational and
undesirable, but understandable. He is advocating peace with
countries that aggress against us, not advocating opening
markets by conquest. He suggests we answer the disruptive use
of force by these evil anticapitalists not with similar force,
but with leadership, persuasion, showing a good example, and
getting rich while others remain poor due to their foolish
economic policies.
This again is the opposite of the warlike interpretation you
and Chomsky apply to him.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
JUMVQYPCAYnNmBPVLhGkSICKcY1iZHFq8CgpZpZr
4WJKDB/xZHNQe+L4mvh9W8FXoY3eyiE1frP/0w+Dw
Joseph Michael Bay
>> This is, of course, total bullshit -- neither Truman nor Rood said
>> anything of the sort.
>As to this point Nathan, I agree with you to a point. The speech does not
>specifically say ever that America's makets must be in a permanent state of
>expansion, per se.
Nor does the book say it does -- that sentiment is attributed
to Hull, Wallace, Acheson and "many others".
The idea that ever-expanding markets are a desirable
or even necessary condition of successful capitalist
enterprise is so uncontroversial that I'm amazed we've
dedicated so many words to it here.
Joseph Michael Bay
> --
>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:26:06 -0800, James A. Donald
><jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> Chomsky wrote, on page 282 of "American power and the New
>> Mandarins"
>That should of course have read page 268.
Hey, what the hell is this, some kinda commie fabrication?
Joseph Michael Bay
>Joseph Michael Bay:
>> Right, I read "under pressure" in the speech itself, which I
>> read thanks largely to Nathan.
>You also read a context, which does not support the very large
>interpretation you place on this very small sentence fragment.
>> The requirement for expanding markets for the US to escape
>> economic stagnation or regimentation is attributed to
>> "Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson, and many others,"
>> not, as has been argued here, to Truman.
>Chomsky is arguing Leninism, arguing that capitalism requires
>ever expanding imperialism in order to stave off the much
>predicted collapse due to internal contradictions, and cites
>Truman in support of that interpretation. But Truman's actual
>words do not support that interpretation.
Ever expanding _markets_. The means by which they expand
is not necessarily through conquest; obviously the ITO was
intended to achieve this goal through peacable means. There's
nothing inherently Leninist or imperialist about saying that
the American system, or profitable trade, is dependent on an
expanding market; it's not just Lenin or Marx but Adam Smith
and Thomas Jefferson who had that view. They just had some
obviously different ideas on the implications. The
military/imperial aspect cites the Rood essay and the parallels
therein to the Japanese imperial expansionism leading up to
WWII.
>> Does the part attributed to Truman mention "ever expanding
>> external markets"?
>In the context, Chomsky gives the appearance that that is what
>Truman means.
Does the part attributed to Truman mention "ever expanding
external markets"?
>The words are not Truman's and the meaning is not Truman's.
Those words are not attributed to Truman, nor is the meaning.
>If these words were given as a paraphrase, and that paraphrase
>appeared in a different context, then in some contexts, that
>paraphrase would convey a meaning similar to that of Truman's
>speech. But in the context of "Amercian power and the new
>mandarins", these are neither Truman's words, nor a valid
>paraphrase of Truman's words. In Chomsky's context these words
>convey a meaning violently contrary to the meaning of Truman's
>speech.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> >That should of course have read page 268.
Joseph Michael Bay
> Hey, what the hell is this, some kinda commie fabrication?
The difference is that my error did not create any evidence
that was not there, whereas Chomksy's "errors" create evidence
out of nothing.
To recap:
Chomsky's citation 82, appearing on pages 268 and 319 of
"American Power and the New Mandarins" looks like a citation,
but in fact is not a citation, but (like most Chomsky
citations) merely a trail of breadcrumbs in the forest, a trail
that if pursued to its end might eventually tell you what
speech Chomsky refers to.
If, after immense labor, one chases this trail to its end, one
eventually finds that Truman did not say the words that Chomsky
attributes to him, and that Truman's speech is not evidence for
the position that Chomsky cites it as evidence for.
This Hansel and Gretel style of citation is characteristic of
Chomsky. His citations, like the body of his work, are
evasive, intended to hide and obscure, not reveal. The reader
is not intended to find the thing cited.
The manner of his citations, like the twisting forked tongued
sentences they are alleged to support, show consciousness of
guilt. They are the text equivalent of someone talking very
loud and fast while unable to meet ones eye.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
eGOJn5l7dJHc286vyWcaj2TCTK/w6rg0ft2JEA+U
41fMoEfLzkFWzZP1v9J6Ut8MrrERzMiIVrL1IdGmJ
Josh Dougherty
news:aqmnf5$oj8$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>
> > --
> >On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:26:06 -0800, James A. Donald
> ><jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >> Chomsky wrote, on page 282 of "American power and the New
> >> Mandarins"
>
> >That should of course have read page 268.
>
> Hey, what the hell is this, some kinda commie fabrication?
>
know.
Josh Dougherty
> --
> James A. Donald
> > > > > Chomsky attributes to Truman words that can be
> > > > > reasonably interpreted to indicate acceptance of the
> > > > > Leninist world view that capitalism must conquer the
> > > > > third world in order to stave off collapse.
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > > > That is basically what he is saying in the speech, and a
> > > > reasonable interperetation.
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > Liar
>
> Josh Dougherty
> > What have I "lied" about James?
>
> You, like Chomsky, lied about the content of Truman's speech.
> Truman's speech is inconsistent with the Leninist world view it
> is cited to support.
>
> You cite it to support Leninism above, and Chomsky cites it to
> support Leninism on page 268 and page 319 of "American power
> and the New Mandarins"
Putting forth true sentiments that you don't happen to like is not "lying".
Josh
James A. Donald
> > As to this point Nathan, I agree with you to a point. The
> > speech does not specifically say ever that America's makets
> > must be in a permanent state of expansion, per se.
Joseph Michael Bay
> Nor does the book say it does -- that sentiment is attributed
> to Hull, Wallace, Acheson and "many others".
Oh come on.
That attribution appears in the midst of pages arguing the
case.
Henry Wallace was a communist, and met political oblivion when
the cold war started, so he very likely took the postion
Chomsky attributes to him. However it is most improbable that
Dean Acheson and Cordell Hull did, any more than Truman did,
and if Chomsky had any evidence for such an extraordinary fact
he certainly would have given it to us.
When Chomsky invokes Acheson and Hull, he is doing the same
thing as he does with Truman -- spouting communist doctrine,
and attributing it to non communist luminaries, selected almost
at random. We similarly see Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington, John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill
continually invoked by the fans of terror and mass murder in
the same way, and to the same purpose.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
SrmQdhf9zeQeToHBkgLP/gGbhGyj2Az7DeDTXbDL
451eGpkmm/Y03GifxFA17kM7Y5BN9Qn23ptVX9qUC
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Chomsky is arguing Leninism, arguing that capitalism
> > requires ever expanding imperialism in order to stave off
> > the much predicted collapse due to internal contradictions,
> > and cites Truman in support of that interpretation. But
> > Truman's actual words do not support that interpretation.
Joseph Michael Bay:
> Ever expanding _markets_. The means by which they expand is
> not necessarily through conquest;
Regardless, Truman's words still do not support Chomsky's
claim, no matter how you phrase Chomsky's claim.
And this is typical of Chomsky citations. The cite is not a
cite, but a hint as to where a trail of breadcrumbs may be
found in the forest, and when one chases the trail of
breadcrumbs to the end, the alleged evidence for Chomsky's
position is not to be found.
> obviously the ITO was intended to achieve this goal through
> peacable means. There's nothing inherently Leninist or
> imperialist about saying that the American system, or
> profitable trade, is dependent on an expanding market;
There is something very Leninist in claiming that the US system
will collapse unless all countries accept it. Chomsky's
argument was that the US was fighting in Vietnam because if
Vietnam did not practice capitalism, this would undermine
capitalism in the USA.
Obviously Truman did not believe that, and it seems highly
improbable that any of the other eminent authorities that
Chomsky pretentiously cites believed that.
> it's not just Lenin or Marx but Adam Smith and Thomas
> Jefferson who had that view.
If you, or Chomsky, had respectable authorities for Marxist
views, you would give actual citations, instead of phony
citations.
If your views are so uncontroversial and widely accepted, why
has Chomsky not found some valid cites to replace his phony
cites?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BNsOy2flFoUQKHjMAldEOE3HZu8thtqh/jAOTvzk
45YVJmTnUskBitP0ixKA7GkNLS39wsbBWWSDNbg9f
Joseph Michael Bay
>> In my view, it's not such a leap to reference the speech in
>> the context Chomsky does
>In Truman's speech, he suggests that to respond to disruption
>of trade with disruption of trade is irrational and
>undesirable, but understandable.
He also says that we must act decisively to stop it from
becoming the pattern of the next century.
>He is advocating peace with
>countries that aggress against us, not advocating opening
>markets by conquest.
Nor does Chomsky claim Truman says it. The advocacy of
using military might to open up markets isn't supported
by that speech; in the book it's supported by Rood's essay,
although there are probably better and more unambiguous examples
of that attitude from more powerful American figures.
>He suggests we answer the disruptive use
>of force by these evil anticapitalists not with similar force,
>but with leadership, persuasion, showing a good example, and
>getting rich while others remain poor due to their foolish
>economic policies.
Actually that's an isolationist viewpoint, which is
exactly the sort of thing Truman was arguing *against*.
He argued for a commitment to the promotion of free trade
globally, not to let nations control their trade and then
see for themselves that it doesn't work.
>This again is the opposite of the warlike interpretation you
>and Chomsky apply to him.
The warlike interpretation is primarily based on the Rood
essay, although all the examples are to some extent lumped
together into a gestalt of political thought.
So anyway, a few days later Truman proclaimed that the US would
assist friendly governments in resisting external _or internal_
forces which would make them unfree.
(Incidentally, I think this is a laudable sentiment, although
it should be ovbious that it's not without catches. What
Truman *says* is that the US must support freedom from
political oppression anywhere in the world, using Greece and
Turkey as examples, but his doctrine has resulted in US
support for many repressive authoritarian regimes, viewing
their repression as unfortunate but ultimately less important
than their opposition to Moscow. This is much the same as
the whitewashing many leftists apply to ostensibly leftist
movements, except of course that the US government has
considerably more power than leftist intellectuals do.)
Josh Dougherty
Truman never used those words!!! You liar.
just kidding. yes, i agree with your paraphrase so far, except it's an
ideological presumption to define a government "interveneing" in its own
economy as "disruption of trade". It presumes your own ideological
viewpoint on trade as the natural state of "trade" and anything else as a
"disruption" of that natural state.
> He is advocating peace with countries that aggress against us,
He does not make that clear at all. One thing he is advocating is a
peaceful course to getting others to do what we want, but others doing what
we want seems non-negotiable. As I said, left unclear is what would be the
relationship toward countries that don't want to join the ITO and be
required to adopt the American world system. Furthermore, the definition of
what constitutes "aggression against us" is rather interesting in this case,
namely the "economic war" and dastardly evil of a government "interveneing"
in its own economy. The way the terms of this whole issue are being defined
does not bode well for any nation who isn't interested in the ITO. Those
nations would still be placing our very "freedoms" and the "American way" in
danger by their "aggression", and certainly in such a case we must still
"act and act decisively" as Truman says.
Is the "American way" and our "freedom" no longer in danger if we've tried
the ITO route and it doesn't work with a country?
Is the "economic aggression" of a nation no longer a concern if we've tried
the ITO route with them and they don't want to join?
Does the desperate need to "act and act decisively" that Truman describes
disappear if we've tried the ITO but a country still insists on "retaining
unlimited freedom to commit acts of economic aggression".
One can only guess here but it would seem not, as Truman seems to view these
things with very grave concern. After hearing how evil those aggressor
countries are being to us, threatening our very freedoms, I certainly
wouldn't just sit around and hope they eventually join the ITO while they
commit acts of "economic aggression" against us year after year.
> not advocating opening markets by conquest.
But, in my view, he is advocating this. He, in this speech, is advocating
conquest through diplomacy and presumably economic and diplomatic pressures
that would go along with the ITO. The "conquest" is of course imposing our
world view and economic system on the world, a point which seems
non-negotiable. Truman, of course, hopes most would "choose" it and to do
whatever we can to make that choice difficult to avoid, but he is insisting
that those results must be acheived. Left unsaid is what would become of
nations that insist on "retaining unlimited freedom to commit acts of
economic aggression" by the crime of "intervening" in its own economy.
> He suggests we answer the disruptive use
> of force by these evil anticapitalists not with similar force,
> but with leadership, persuasion, showing a good example,
He suggests this, but does not discuss what is to happen to all the nations
that do not succumb to our global design and agree to do what we say through
the means of the ITO. Surely, all of Truman's fears and warnings which lead
him to believe we "must act", would all still be in play for any nations
that refused to sign on and follow our orders.
...one can only guess what policy would be toward those "aggressor" states
who would insist on commiting the evil crimes against us by "interveneing in
their own economy". One could assume it might be...oh maybe carpet bombing
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran or anyone else who doesn't
subordinate themselves to our chosen world system. But hey, i could be
wrong, perhaps just ever more "leadership, persuasion, and showing a good
example" would be in order.
> and getting rich while others remain poor due to their foolish
> economic policies.
He does not say anything of this sort, in fact much of the speech
contradicts this. This seems rather like something that was added by you in
order to conform the speech fully to your own extremist ideology. Truman's
extremist ideology attributes "freedom" and "peace" to capitalism here, your
extremist ideology also would insist on adding that capitalism alone is
responsible for all economic prosperity and that all other systems would
lead to economic decline. Truman doesn't argue this however, and in fact
much of his speech is acknowledgeing something quite different. This
clearly upsets you.
> This again is the opposite of the warlike interpretation you
> and Chomsky apply to him.
It is, I believe warlike in nature, as the sentiments are rather immovable
and uncompromising. This is evident in how the terms of the issue are being
defined and what parameters are being set. It insists that the world must
be led to follow our system, that for this not to be would place our
"freedom" and the very "American way" in danger. It defines any nation that
chooses a different economic system for its own country as an "aggressor"
who's using "force" and threatening our "freedom" through acts of "economic
aggression". Furthermore, it argues that there is no possible way to remedy
this other than for that nation to adopt our system. Since the political
and economic are "indivisible", no matter how friendly they may try to be in
the political sphere, it matters not. Until they do what we say
economically, they are "aggressors" and are placing us in danger. Surely a
country being so "hostile" and "aggressive" as to threaten our freedom and
the "American way" by commiting the crime of choosing a different economic
system for itself, can never be a country at which we could be at peace.
The parameters of the discussion insist on and define the whole issue as
conflict and leave only two choices as I see it: do it our way or you're the
enemy.
The one way that is openly discussed is a diplomatic course as a way to
"act", but the way the terms are defined leads to a number of other
conclusions as well. Apparently Truman hopes all would join up and agree to
subordinate themselves to the way we've decided that every country must act.
One is just left to wonder what would come of a "hostile" and "agressor"
country who felt like retaining the right to conduct its own economic
affairs however it chose, like, oh i don't know, Vietnam for instance. If
Kruschev had made a speech of this sort, defined the terms in a similarly
uncompromising fashion, but reversed "free markets" with the world "going
communist", I don't think you'd have a hard time seeing this, even if his
proposed ideal solution was a diplomatic agreement to require the whole
world to "go communist".
Josh
Jack Black
> He attributes the words to Warburg. He didn't credit Warburg in the first
> edition of the book in 1969, but this was corrected shortly thereafter in
> the second printing, and has been correctly attributed ever since.
The attribution is usefully ambiguous.
Here is the version in the 2002 edition:
:: It has been a long-standing belief, expressed by Cordell Hull, Henry
:: Wallace, Dean Acheson and many others, that we can escape recurrent
:: economic stagnation or internal regimentation only with ever expanding
:: markets. These words recall the characteristically direct formulations
:: of Harry Truman, who proclaimed in 1947 (in James Warburg's paraphrase)
:: that "the whole world should adopt the American system [which] could
:: survive in America only if it became a world system" [82] noting also
:: that unless the trend toward nationalization is reversed, the "American
:: way" and the "way of peace" will be threatened.
Noam Chomsky -American Power and the New Mandarins- (New Press: 2002) p268
In the above section, the attribution of the "whole world" statement is
ambiguous. It isn't clear who made the original statement - Truman or
Warburg. As a trained linguist, Chomsky should know better.
If Chomsky is the "media critic" that he makes himself out to be (rather
than the propagandist for various third world totalitarian movements that
he claims he isn't) Chomsky would have made the attribution much more clear
than it is.
Josh Dougherty
news:751eda4b.02111...@posting.google.com...
The attribution is not ambiguous at all. It is Truman's sentiments as
paraphrased by James Warburg, just as it says. That's very clear.
> If Chomsky is the "media critic" that he makes himself out to be (rather
> than the propagandist for various third world totalitarian movements that
> he claims he isn't) Chomsky would have made the attribution much more
clear
> than it is.
Yes, the belief that other countries should have the right to embark on
other economic paths than the one dictated by the US is "totalitarian",
while the belief that the whole world must adopt the US system or be
considered the enemy is pluralistic and democratic.
Josh
James A. Donald
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:14:12 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
> Well, James A. Donald is on record as having fabricated
> source material you know.
Liar.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
TbJuFkxjjaRTXfhT8h3umXMJ0cs24ywrnffuQZRi
4O12qEz2G0Ciw2E2aCpdps8+xyz3uFk2O8BgX64bX
Joseph Michael Bay
> --
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:14:12 GMT, "Josh Dougherty"
>> Well, James A. Donald is on record as having fabricated
>> source material you know.
>Liar.
I had a bit of spare time this afternoon so I took a
look at a bit of AM Schlesinger Jr's _Cycles in American History_.
Interestingly, while Mr. Kamm reports that Schlesinger
accuses Chomsky of fabricating his source material, Schlesinger
himself simply says that Chomsky *cites* an actually existing,
but in some way spurious, source. Schelsinger says that the
quote (which is a paraphrase) is fabricated, but neither
says nor to my mind implies that Chomsky "fabricated" it.
He doesn't say who "fabricated" it, but notes that Chomsky
and another author whose name escapes me at the moment cited
it, and that it's not an accurate summation of Truman's speech.
Perhaps DF Fleming is fingered as the culprit; unfortunately
his _Origins of the Cold War_ is only to be found in two of
Stanford's libraries, both of which are closed Sundays.
James A. Donald
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 03:52:28 +0000 (UTC), jm...@Stanford.EDU
(Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:
> I had a bit of spare time this afternoon so I took a look at
> a bit of AM Schlesinger Jr's _Cycles in American History_.
> Interestingly, while Mr. Kamm reports that Schlesinger
> accuses Chomsky of fabricating his source material,
> Schlesinger himself simply says that Chomsky *cites* an
> actually existing, but in some way spurious, source
Indeed, most Chomky citations are of this form, and his Truman
cite a particularly good example.
The cite is spurious because it is not a citation, but instead,
like most Chomsky citations, merely a hint as to where to find
a trail of breadcrumbs leading through the forest to the actual
material that supposedly supports Chomsky's position.
The cite is spurious because Chomsky puts quote marks around
words that are not Truman's, quoting them as Truman's own
words.
The cite is spurious because when we chase the trail of
breadcrumbs to its end, Truman's speech does not in fact
support the position that Chomsky uses it to support, just as
most material cited by Chomsky does not in fact support the
position Chomsky claims it to support.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Nv7WJpgSLmSvU7eMm1Vh+A4/RP582WppZa9Ti/u1
4P6IHP1nQM50+jG2EDyrsMHsbps+Sp2DLEBbRnp3v
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> >He [Truman] advocates peace with countries that aggress
> >against us, not opening markets by conquest.
Joseph Michael Bay
> Nor does Chomsky claim Truman says it.
Chomsky is using the position he imputes to Truman to explain
the Vietnam war. Supposedly the USA is making war on Vietnam
to keep South Vietnamese markets open.
Obviously Truman's speech does not support that explanation,
but Chomsky cites it as supporting that explanation.
James A. Donald
> >This again is the opposite of the warlike interpretation you
> >and Chomsky apply to him.
Joseph Michael Bay
> The warlike interpretation is primarily based on the Rood
> essay, although all the examples are to some extent lumped
> together into a gestalt of political thought.
The Rood essay argues that military threats to distant places
threaten the USA, requiring military response. When Chomsky
lumps together Truman's reference to bad economic policies in
distant places harming the USA, with Rood's reference to
aggressive miltary policies in distant places threatening the
USA, he lies about Truman.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
SD3KCLsJx6LDMfvjTVchVRv74HnX/RTfcXgyEFcr
4AgvXLinHkX825O9oGIL0sLoBi8qpqFQht0QHOqQY
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > In Truman's speech, he suggests that to respond to
> > disruption of trade with disruption of trade is irrational
> > and undesirable, but understandable.
Josh Dougherty:
> yes, i agree with your paraphrase so far, except it's an
> ideological presumption to define a government "interveneing"
> in its own economy as "disruption of trade". It presumes
> your own ideological viewpoint on trade as the natural state
> of "trade" and anything else as a "disruption" of that
> natural state.
Whether my viewpoint is true or false, it is also Truman's
viewpoint. When Chomsky attributes to Truman a Leninist
viewpoint, Chomsky lies.
> One can only guess here but it would seem not, as Truman
> seems to view these things with very grave concern. After
> hearing how evil those aggressor countries are being to us,
> threatening our very freedoms,
Truman does not suggest those nations threaten our very
freedoms. He suggests that our foolish reaction to their
foolishness might threaten our own very freedoms.
When you interpret him as a Leninist, a accepting Lenin's
account of capitalism, this is just silly.
James A. Donald:
> > He suggests we answer the disruptive use of force by these
> > evil anticapitalists not with similar force, but with
> > leadership, persuasion, showing a good example,
Josh Dougherty:
> He suggests this, but does not discuss what is to happen to
> all the nations that do not succumb to our global design and
> agree to do what we say through the means of the ITO.
Obviously, from the speech, nothing whatsoever, since the worst
harm to ourselves is likely to result from us foolishly being
provoked into economic reprisals against them, intervening in
our economy to our own harm in reprisal agains them intervening
in their economy to their own harm.
> Surely, all of Truman's fears and warnings which lead him to
> believe we "must act"
His main fear, and biggest warning, is that we might be
provoked to act, when we should not.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
h4I38cZAYIcCP/niXhyoRPuMHX+bOQfunq4sMSAM
4t3wOQmXWAEugDEMhEEX4h9AkoTkTljBPOWhyhV5e
Dan Clore
> Josh Dougherty wrote:
> > He attributes the words to Warburg. He didn't credit Warburg in the first
> > edition of the book in 1969, but this was corrected shortly thereafter in
> > the second printing, and has been correctly attributed ever since.
>
> The attribution is usefully ambiguous.
>
> Here is the version in the 2002 edition:
>
> :: It has been a long-standing belief, expressed by Cordell Hull, Henry
> :: Wallace, Dean Acheson and many others, that we can escape recurrent
> :: economic stagnation or internal regimentation only with ever expanding
> :: markets. These words recall the characteristically direct formulations
> :: of Harry Truman, who proclaimed in 1947 (in James Warburg's paraphrase)
> :: that "the whole world should adopt the American system [which] could
> :: survive in America only if it became a world system" [82] noting also
> :: that unless the trend toward nationalization is reversed, the "American
> :: way" and the "way of peace" will be threatened.
>
> Noam Chomsky -American Power and the New Mandarins- (New Press: 2002) p268
>
> In the above section, the attribution of the "whole world" statement is
> ambiguous. It isn't clear who made the original statement - Truman or
> Warburg. As a trained linguist, Chomsky should know better.
Complete baloney. It says that these words are Warburg's
paraphrase of Truman's formulations. There's no ambiguity
there.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith
Josh Dougherty
believing what you'd like, and I'll continue "lying".
Josh
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:7agusukh9nsdu2p8g...@4ax.com...
Jack Black
>
> Jack Black wrote:
> >
> > Here is the version in the 2002 edition:
> >
> > :: It has been a long-standing belief, expressed by
> > :: Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Dean Acheson and many
> > :: others, that we can escape recurrent economic
> > :: stagnation or internal regimentation only with ever
> > :: expanding markets. These words recall the
> > :: characteristically direct formulations of Harry Truman,
> > :: who proclaimed in 1947 (in James Warburg's paraphrase)
> > :: that "the whole world should adopt the American system
> > :: [which] could survive in America only if it became a
> > :: world system" [82] noting also that unless the trend
> > :: toward nationalization is reversed, the "American
> > :: way" and the "way of peace" will be threatened.
> >
> > Noam Chomsky -American Power and the New Mandarins-
> > (New Press: 2002) p268
> >
> > In the above section, the attribution of the "whole world"
> > statement is ambiguous. It isn't clear who made the original
> > statement - Truman or Warburg. As a trained linguist, Chomsky
> > should know better.
>
> paraphrase of Truman's formulations. There's no ambiguity
> there.
The attribution is ambiguous.
The "whole world" statement is at the end of a sentence with two
potential sources: Warburg and Truman. The "whole world" statement
is direct. Chomsky notes that direct statements are characteristic
of Truman. Chomsky's weasel words make it sound like Truman made
the quoted statement.
If Chomsky is the "media critic" that he makes himself out to be
(rather than the propagandist for various third world totalitarian
movements that he claims he isn't) Chomsky would have made the
attribution much more clear than it is. Chomsky has had
*over thirty years* to get this right.
Dan Clore
(Note that the use of square brackets here indicates the use
of paraphrase.)
> The attribution is ambiguous.
No, it isn't.
> The "whole world" statement is at the end of a sentence with two
> potential sources: Warburg and Truman.
With *one* potential source: Warburg paraphrasing Truman.
> The "whole world" statement
> is direct. Chomsky notes that direct statements are characteristic
> of Truman. Chomsky's weasel words make it sound like Truman made
> the quoted statement.
What "weasel words"--"(in James Warburg's paraphrase)"?
> If Chomsky is the "media critic" that he makes himself out to be
> (rather than the propagandist for various third world totalitarian
> movements that he claims he isn't) Chomsky would have made the
> attribution much more clear than it is. Chomsky has had
> *over thirty years* to get this right.
He got it right the first time. It's not his fault if his
critics deliberately misread what he wrote.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
Jack Black
>
> Josh Dougherty wrote:
> >
> > As to this point Nathan, I agree with you to a point. The speech
> > does not specifically say ever that America's makets must be in a
> > permanent state of expansion, per se.
>
> Nor does the book say it does -- that sentiment is attributed
> to Hull, Wallace, Acheson and "many others".
Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.
With such a wealth of alleged source material, Chomsky conspicuously
fails to provide any *actual quotations* of Hobsonian/Lenninist
imperialism.
Jack Black
Right - which raises a point:
Chomsky has had ample opportunity to put Truman's *actual words* into
the latter editions of APNM and has conspicuously failed to do so;
failed to do so because the paraphrase does not match the meaning of
Truman's *actual words*.
Dan Clore wrote:
> Jack Black wrote:
> >
> > The "whole world" statement is at the end of a sentence with two
> > potential sources: Warburg and Truman.
>
> With *one* potential source: Warburg paraphrasing Truman.
Chomsky fails to separate Warburg and Truman into two sentences.
The "whole world" statement is at the end of a sentence with *two*
potential sources: Warburg and Truman. The "whole world" statement
is direct. In the same sentence, Chomsky notes that direct
statements are characteristic of Truman. Chomsky's weasel words
make it sound like Truman made the quoted statement.
Dan Clore wrote:
> Jack Black wrote:
> >
> > The "whole world" statement
> > is direct. Chomsky notes that direct statements are characteristic
> > of Truman. Chomsky's weasel words make it sound like Truman made
> > the quoted statement.
>
> What "weasel words"--"(in James Warburg's paraphrase)"?
With Chomsky, "Which words *are not* weasel words?" is more germane.
Dan Clore wrote:
> Jack Black wrote:
> >
> > If Chomsky is the "media critic" that he makes himself out to be
> > (rather than the propagandist for various third world totalitarian
> > movements that he claims he isn't) Chomsky would have made the
> > attribution much more clear than it is. Chomsky has had
> > *over thirty years* to get this right.
>
> He got it right the first time.
No he didn't.
> It's not his fault if his
> critics deliberately misread what he wrote.
No they haven't.
It is remarkable that fans of Chomsky give their master a free pass
when he decodes the hidden meaning behind a statement, yet refrain
from extending the same privilege to the good doctor's critics.