Refuting Brad Delong's Smear Job on Chomsky
torresD
http://www.counterpunch.org/herman07262003.html
July 26, 2003
Degraded and Dishonest
Refuting Brad Delong's Smear Job on Chomsky
By EDWARD S. HERMAN
In his "Thoughts" on Chomsky, under the title "My Very,Very Allergic
Reaction to Noam Chomsky: Khmer Rouge, Faurisson, Milosevic," Brad DeLong is
long on name calling, smears by selective choice of decontextualized words
and sentences, straightforward misrepresentation, and numerous assertions
unsupported by evidence. He is short on tolerance of viewpoints that he
doesn't like and very short on just plain intellectual integrity. His
preening self-regard and pomposity in straightening out Chomsky and his
misguided "surprising number" of "followers" is also impressive.
In his first two paragraphs he makes the point that Chomsky's admirers "form
a kind of cult," but no evidence is given supporting this insult, which is a
familiar form of smear to denigrate people admiring someone with whom one
disagrees. He then compares teaching such folks to teaching Plato to pigs.
So his opening is pure name-calling.
In his next paragraph he tries to engage in substance, and this effort is
worth a close look. He says: "Consider Chomsky's claim that: 'In the early
1990s, primarily for cynical great power reasons, the U.S. selected Bosnian
Muslims as their Balkan clients' On its face this is ludicrous. When the
United States selects clients for cynical great power reasons it selects
strong clients-not ones whose unarmed men are rounded up and shot by the
thousands. And Bosnian Muslims as a key to U.S. politico-military strategy
in Europe? As Bismarck said more than a century ago, 'There is nothing in
the Balkans that is worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.' It
holds true today as well: the U.S, has no strategic or security interest in
the Balkans that is worth the death of a single Carolinian fire-control
technician. U.S. intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s was 'humanitarian'
in origin and intention (even if we can argue about its effect). Only a nut-
boy loon would argue otherwise."
The first substantive statement in this paragraph, that the United States
always selects strong clients, is truly "ludicrous": the United States
supported the Nicaraguan contras, Savimbi's UNITA in Angola, the little
rag-tag forces in Nicaragua that it organized to invade Guatemala in 1954,
Somoza's Nicaragua, the Florida and Nicaragua-based invasion force for the
Bay of Pigs, the remnants of Chiang Kai Shek's defeated army in northern
Burma following the victory of the communists in China in 1949, Chiang's
Taiwan from 1949, the Persian Gulf Emirates, and many other similarly
"strong clients." The implication that because the Bosnian Muslims were shot
in large numbers they couldn't have been U.S. clients is not only a non
sequitur, it also flies in the face of massive evidence that they were U.S.
clients, as any serious book on the subject makes clear (e.g., Lord David
Owen's Balkan Odyssey, Susan Woodward's Balkan Tragedy, or Diana Johnstone's
Fools' Crusade). This client status is not even controversial. DeLong's
ignorance of this subject area is apparently close to complete, as he fails
to note that our Bosnian clients also shot a lot of unarmed men, and that
we, in collaboration with the Saudis and Bin Laden , ferried massive
supplies and mujahadin troops into Bosnia (as described in detail in the
Dutch report on Srebrenica) and bombed the Serbs on behalf of our Bosnian
Muslim client in the lead-up to the Dayton agreement.
His next sentence about the Bosnian Muslims as "a key to U.S.
politico-military strategy in Europe" misrepresents and therefore lies about
Chomsky's language-Chomsky didn't say "key...in Europe," he said merely that
the U.S. selected the Bosnian Muslims as clients in the Balkans, a narrower
statement. DeLong then gives his quote from Bismarck, a phony parade of
"learning" as we can't know whether Bismarck was correct or whether he even
believed what he said, and what was true a century back might not be true
now.
DeLong then goes on to say that it is true today that the United States has
no strategic or security interest in the Balkans. It goes without saying
that he doesn't offer evidence on this point or discuss contrary facts and
views. Many analysts have pointed to:
(1) the huge U.S. military base built in Kosovo, which must have some
security interest function;
(2) the fact that the NATO intervention destroyed the one independent
political body in Europe not integrated into the Western political
economy--Yugoslavia--and facilitated that integration;
(3) the importance of the Caspian oil area and the interest of Western oil
companies in possible Balkans transport routes;
(4) the link between the Kosovo War and the April 1999 celebration of the
50th anniversary of the birth of NATO with an imminent NATO military
triumph;
(5) the possible interest of the United States in reasserting its domination
of NATO by taking the lead in the Balkans struggles; and
(6) the admissions by Clinton, Blair, and Defense Secretary Cohen that the
"credibility of NATO" was a prime reason for the bombing.
But DeLong knows that all this is irrelevant because the U.S. intervention
was based on "humanitarian" motives! This is one of those higher patriotic
truths that DeLong grasps by intuition. But although Clinton and Blair were
proceeding on the basis of humanitarian motives, you can be sure DeLong will
not stop to explain why both of these humanitarians were consistent
supporters of, and arms suppliers to, both Suharto and the Turkish regime
that was ethnic-cleansing Kurds throughout the 1990s. The same Blair who
fought for humanitarian ends with Clinton in 1999 also claims to have been
fighting for humanitarian ends with Bush in Iraq in 2003. I wonder if DeLong
buys that patriotic line now, or is it only a highly moral Democrat like
Clinton who will pursue humanitarian ends? I should mention that Andrew
Bacevich's recent book, American Empire, highly praised in the mainstream,
asserts strongly that the United States had no humanitarian concerns at all
in its Balkans war-making and that Clinton's resort to force was merely to
establish "the cohesion of NATO and the credibility of American power."
So who is the "nut-boy"-Chomsky, or the man who misrepresents his target's
language, regurgitates foolish patriotic truths, displays abysmal ignorance
on matters on which he writes as if an authority, and rules out evidence and
rational discourse on these matters?
After this proof of Chomsky as a nut-boy, DeLong has a few lines on what
Chomsky admirers say when he presents them with that nut-boy phrase on
Bosnia. No quotes from the admirers, just alleged paraphrases, with words
like "Oil pipelines!" with an exclamation point, but no serious analyses or
answers-just cute little putdowns.
One paraphrased reply mentions Chomsky's "insights." DeLong then goes on as
follows: "Insights? Like his writing a preface for a book by Robert
Faurisson," which he follows up with selective partial quotes like that
Chomsky said that Faurisson seemed to be "a relatively apolitical liberal"
and that Chomsky admitted to "no special knowledge" of the topic Faurisson
dealt with and hadn't read anything by Faurisson "that suggests that the man
was pro-Nazi."
Neither Chomsky nor his "followers" ever claimed these phrases were
"insights"-that is the trick of a smear artist, who searches for vulnerable
language in the target, takes the words out of context, and elevates them to
supposed "insights." Note too the illogic-it was an alleged "insight" to
write a "preface." Note also the dishonesty in not mentioning that the
preface was only written as an independent avis and inserted in the book as
a preface without Chomsky's prior approval (see Chomsky's "The Right to Say
It," The Nation, Feb. 28, 1981.
Most important in this phase of the smear enterprise is DeLong's refusal to
recognize that the avis was solely a defense of the right of free speech and
that from beginning to end that was all the struggle was about for Chomsky.
It was certainly not about Faurisson's views or in any way a defense of
those views, and DeLong fails to mention that Faurisson was dismissed from
his job teaching French literature because the authorities claimed they
couldn't defend him against his enemies, and he was brought to court not for
his political views but for "Falsification of History" (in the matter of gas
chambers) and for "allowing others" to use his work for nefarious ends. This
was a major civil liberties case in which, for perhaps the first time in the
West, a court decided that the state has a right to determine historical
truth.
DeLong wants to deflect attention from this important issue to Faurisson's
views, which he presents in an unattributed quote which refers to Faurisson
as "a guy whose thesis seems to be" (and then comes a rhetorical statement
about a big lie). DeLong latches on to Chomsky phrases in the avis that
Faurisson seemed to be a "relatively apolitical liberal," and was not
necessarily pro-Nazi--a view Chomsky arrived at after talking with several
of Faurisson's leading critics in France, who were unable to provide any
credible evidence of anti-Semitism or neo-Naziism--but DeLong fails to note
Chomsky's statement in the avis that Faurisson might indeed be an
anti-Semite or Nazi as claimed, but that that would have no bearing on the
issue of freedom of speech. DeLong also fails to mention Chomsky's repeated
expressions of horror at the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of
collective insanity in human history" and his statement that we "lose our
humanity" if we even enter into debate with those who deny or try to
diminish Nazi crimes. Note also the dishonesty in suppressing Chomsky's
repeated statements that he has signed free speech petitions for numerous
Soviet bloc victims without knowing their views, or even with an awareness
of their obnoxiousness--which he didn't mention-- but never suffered
criticism, or DeLong-type smear jobs, for not having researched the exact
beliefs of these civil liberties victims.
DeLong says, "Would it be better not to misrepresent Faurisson's beliefs?
Not to claim that he is a relatively apolitical liberal? Not to say that you
have seen no evidence that Faurisson is pro-Nazi? It is, after all, a much
stronger defense of free speech to say that you are defending a loathsome
Holocaust-denier's right to free speech because free speech is absolute,
then to say that poor Faurisson-a relatively apolitical liberal-is being
persecuted for no reason other than that some object to his (unspecified)
'conclusions'." As noted, DeLong's statement that Chomsky "misrepresents
Faurisson's beliefs" is false. His second point is also false, because if
the free speech issue involves protection of a man accused of "loathsome"
views, who is being attacked for those views, both the nature of those views
and the fact that he is being attacked for them are of some importance, even
if they are not central. But Chomsky made it clear that he thought the views
of civil liberties victims-loathsome or not-were irrelevant in decisions as
to whether they should be defended, a point that every civil libertarian
takes for granted. DeLong's smear objective compels him to skirt around this
principled position.
DeLong's last line is an obscurantist masterpiece in which he stumbles over
his own rhetorical effusion: Faurisson was being "persecuted"--this is
irony, suggesting that he got what was coming to him, although DeLong is of
course a believer in free speech! And "some object to his (unspecified)
'conclusions'"-again, heavy-handed irony in which Faurisson's evil views,
that people like Chomsky are unwilling to openly acknowledge or deny, are
opposed by good people who have been allegedly "persecuting" him. When he
says that the bad folks are complaining that Faurisson was persecuted "for
no other reason" than objections to his unspecified conclusions, does he
mean that there was another reason to go after him, or is that just
reinforcing the point that the "(unspecified) conclusions" were quite
enough?
As with Bosnia, DeLong gives a list of three straw-person answers on
Faurisson from Chomsky "supporters," again without citation or quotes, but
with much sarcasm and sneers, as he continues his hit-and-run smear job.
DeLong then takes up Chomsky's crimes in treating Cambodia. He starts with a
quote from our 1979 book After the Cataclysm (ATC):
"If a serious study...is someday undertaken, it may well be discoveredthat
the Khmer Rouge programs elicited a positive responsebecause they dealt with
fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the
imperial system.Such a study, however, has yet to be undertaken."
DeLong comments: "Reflect that it was published three full years after the
Cambodian Holocaust of the Year Zero. Ask yourself whether this is an
uncovering or a covering of the crimes of an abominable regime." The answer
is that a single stripped-down quote taken out of context and that
speculates about what may come from a future study tells nothing to an
honest person. DeLong naturally fails to acknowledge that our stated aim in
the book was not to uncover crimes but to see how the "facts have been
interpreted, filtered, distorted or modified by the ideological institutions
of the West" (ATC, vii). For DeLong, as for the mainstream, this was an
illegitimate objective.
DeLong seems to think that the "holocaust" occurred instantaneously upon the
takeover of the KR in 1975. He pretends that full data on this closed regime
were readily available for a book published three years later. He fails to
mention that in speculating here Chomsky (and this writer, his co-author)
also raised the possibility that the worst charges might also turn out to be
true when all the facts are in, and that we were drawing no conclusions
about where the truth lies in this range of descriptions (ATC, 293). He
suppresses the fact that our reference to the "positive response" was taken
mainly from Francois Ponchaud's Cambodge annee zero, where Ponchaud speaks
of the "genuine egalitarian revolution," the "new pride" of miserably
oppressed peasants in constructive work, and first time women's
participation. Ponchaud's book was widely cited as an authoritative source
as well as a condemnation of the KR, so citing it and acknowledging its
finding of positive features in the KR revolution wouldn't suit DeLong's
purpose; nor would Long attack Ponchaud as an apologist for the "crimes of
this abominable regime" although Ponchaud's positive statements are
unqualified, whereas DeLong goes into a tantrum about a speculation of ours
saying that these explicit conclusions may turn out to be correct. We quoted
similar material from David Chandler and Richard Dudman, highly respected
analysts of Cambodia. DeLong suppresses our use of these sources as well in
order to make it appear that any positive notions were unique to his smear
target. He suppresses the fact that Ponchaud himself complimented Chomsky
for his "responsible attitude and precision of thought" in his writings on
Cambodia.
DeLong continues: "But it gets worse. Go back to your Nation of 1977, and
consider the paragraph"-then quoting us that "Space limitations preclude a
comprehensive view," but that specialists writing in the Far Eastern
Economic Review, Economist, and Melbourne Journal of Politics have studied
the evidence and concluded "that executions have numbered at most in the
thousands" DeLong then quotes at length an ally attacking these source
references, and DeLong himself says he looked through the Economist and
couldn't find anything written by the Economist staff on the subject. "So
why does Chomsky lie about these 'highly qualified specialists'? The claim
that it is 'space limitations' rather than 'non-existence' that prevents
their being named cannot be a claim in good faith, can it? And why would
anyone lie for Pol Pot, unless they were either a nut-boy loon or were being
mendacious and malevolent in search of some sinister and secret purpose?"
DeLong's statement that Chomsky lied here is itself a plain lie. Our
references were exactly correct. DeLong couldn't find anything written by
the Economist "staff," but he knows full well that the reference was to a
letter to the editor, published in and therefore provided by, the paper, by
Cambodia demographer W. J. Sampson, an economist-statistician who was living
in Phnom Penh and worked in close contact with the government's central
statistics office. Sampson's work is cited with respect by Nayan Chanda, at
the time the most highly respected journalist in Southeast Asia, writing for
the Far Eastern Economic Review (ATC, 231f). Sampson was at least as "highly
qualified [a] specialist" as anybody on the staff of the Economist. DeLong
knows that we cited many other "highly qualified specialists" just one year
later in After the Cataclysm, so his sneer about the "non-existence" of
these sources is another dishonest suppression and shows that his own "good
faith" and intellectual integrity are non-existent.
DeLong and his ally claim that Chomsky said that Khmer Rouge killings were
"at most in the thousands," and that Chomsky had implied that this was "a
conclusion of an article[by Nayan Chanda in] the Far Eastern Economic
Review." DeLong and friend also note that the author Chanda says "the
numbers killed are impossible to calculate." DeLong's ally asserts that
"Chomsky presented the Far Eastern Economic Review as confidently denying
the possibility that killings were vastly higher, but Chanda specifically
denies such knowledge and confidence." First of all, we did not attribute
the "at most in the thousands" statement to Chanda, but to Sampson. Second,
we ourselves quoted Chanda's statement that "the numbers killed are
impossible to calculate," that DeLong implies we neglected (ATC, 229).
Third, we quote Chanda saying that the testimony from refugees and others
"leaves no doubt: the number of deaths has been terribly high" (229), so the
statement that Chomsky denied "the possibility that killings were vastly
higher" is another lie.
DeLong ends on Cambodia asserting that "Chomsky not only said that there
wasn't conclusive evidence that the Khmer Rouge were genocidal butchers, he
wrote-falsely-that there was reliable evidence that they weren't genocidal
butchers." This is one more flat, outright lie. We never said, or hinted,
anything like this. We cited every serious source available at the time on
the KR killings, including Ben Kiernan, Michael Vickery, Stephen Heder,
David Chandler, Chanda, Ponchaud, and State department Cambodia experts
Charles Twining and Timothy Carney. We quoted Twining's estimate of
killings--in the "thousands or hundreds of thousands," but with admitted
difficulty in getting valid numbers. We quoted Twining's superior Richard
Holbrooke's estimate of "tens if not hundreds of thousands " for "deaths"
from all causes. The State Department's Timothy Carney estimated the deaths
from "brutal, rapid change" (explicitly not "mass genocide") as in the
hundreds of thousands (ATC, 159-160). We took no position on the accuracy of
these numbers, but did note that they were far below the widespread
mainstream claims of two million massacred. On DeLong principles, the State
Department analysts and Holbrooke are liars and apologists for Pol Pot,
downplaying the "conclusive evidence" that he was a genocidal butcher.
DeLong never mentions that our book was explicitly aimed at countering the
huge and lie-rich propaganda barrage on Cambodia that began upon the KR
entry into Phnom Penh in April 1975, a barrage and lies which only served a
political and ideological purpose and did not help the Cambodians in any way
whatsoever. DeLong of course ignores our comparative analysis of the
difference in treatment of Indonesia in East Timor and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
A larger fraction of the population of East Timor died in the wake of the
Indonesian aggression than died in Cambodia under Pol Pot (where many of the
deaths were residuals of the starvation conditions facing the KR in April
1975). The East Timorese mass killings were positively supported by the U.S.
government, and in contrast with Pol Pot's killings those in East Timor were
readily subject to U.S. influence and control. Brad DeLong does not condemn
these killings as genocide and assail its perpetrators and apologists for
practical support of genocide. Doesn't this make him an apologist for
genocidal butchers?
DeLong never mentions that estimates of the numbers killed by the U.S. Air
Force in its bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1975 run into the hundreds of
thousands, which on his terms should make Nixon and Kissinger into
"genocidal butchers." He has never so described them, nor assailed those who
neglect this "genocide." He never mentions that the United States defended
and supplied the KR after its ouster by the Vietnamese in 1978, which
allowed the KR to continue to attack Cambodians; this doesn't elicit his
indignation over support for genocidal butchers. With a turn in U.S. policy
toward China and the Khmer Rouge in 1977-1978, we find Douglas Pike, former
U.S. government specialist on Vietnam, and later head of the University of
California Indochina Archives, writing in November 1979 about the
"charismatic leader" Pol Pot, leader of a "bloody but successful peasant
revolution with a substantial residue of popular support" and where most of
them "did not experience much in the way of brutality." This great warmth
toward the genocidal butchers, long after the facts were in, and after the
escalated KR killings in 1977 and 1978, has produced no allergic reaction in
Brad DeLong.
In his book The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism, in a chapter
entitled "Science: Handmaiden of Inspired Truth," Robert A. Brady noted how
often scientists carelessly "assume that the attempt to think rigorously in
one field automatically implies thinking rigorously whenever one thinks
about anything at all." When he does this "he is merely allowing himself to
abandon rational criteria in favor of uncritical belief." Brady pointed out
that such "uncritical belief" is often the conventional wisdom, in which God
and country rank high. Could it be that just as Brad DeLong, by an act of
patriotic faith, explains Clinton's wars in the Balkans as based on
humanitarian motives, so also he offers implicit apologetics for U.S. policy
in Cambodia and East Timor based on the same deep-seated chauvinistic
biases? Could these underpin his "allergic reaction" and intellectually
degraded and dishonest smear job on Chomsky?
Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania, an economist and media analyst. He is author of
numerous books, including Corporate Control, Corporate Power (1981), The
Real Terror Network (1982), Manufacturing Consent (1988, with Noam Chomsky),
Triumph of the Market (1995), and The Myth of The Liberal Media: an Edward
Herman Reader (1999).
Stephen Denney
"torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Message-ID: <LymXa.627$VF...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/herman07262003.html
> July 26, 2003
>
> Degraded and Dishonest
> Refuting Brad Delong's Smear Job on Chomsky
> By EDWARD S. HERMAN
>
> In his "Thoughts" on Chomsky, under the title "My Very,Very Allergic
> Reaction to Noam Chomsky: Khmer Rouge, Faurisson, Milosevic," Brad DeLong is
> long on name calling, smears by selective choice of decontextualized words
> and sentences, straightforward misrepresentation, and numerous assertions
> unsupported by evidence. He is short on tolerance of viewpoints that he
> doesn't like and very short on just plain intellectual integrity. His
> preening self-regard and pomposity in straightening out Chomsky and his
> misguided "surprising number" of "followers" is also impressive.
>
>
> DeLong never mentions that estimates of the numbers killed by the U.S. Air
> Force in its bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1975 run into the hundreds of
> thousands, which on his terms should make Nixon and Kissinger into
> "genocidal butchers." He has never so described them, nor assailed those who
> neglect this "genocide." He never mentions that the United States defended
> and supplied the KR after its ouster by the Vietnamese in 1978, which
> allowed the KR to continue to attack Cambodians; this doesn't elicit his
> indignation over support for genocidal butchers. With a turn in U.S. policy
> toward China and the Khmer Rouge in 1977-1978, we find Douglas Pike, former
> U.S. government specialist on Vietnam, and later head of the University of
> California Indochina Archives, writing in November 1979 about the
> "charismatic leader" Pol Pot, leader of a "bloody but successful peasant
> revolution with a substantial residue of popular support" and where most of
> them "did not experience much in the way of brutality." This great warmth
> toward the genocidal butchers, long after the facts were in, and after the
> escalated KR killings in 1977 and 1978, has produced no allergic reaction in
> Brad DeLong.
>
I knew Douglas Pike and worked as his assistant for several years. With
regard to the above quotes, since there is no citation presented here I
don't know what article Herman is citing. However, stating that Pol Pot
was charismatic or had a popular following hardly constitutes praise. The
same could be said of Adolf Hitler. As to Herman's claim that Mr. Pike
said "most of them `did not experience much in the way of brutality,'"
that is certainly not my view and I don't believe it was Mr. Pike's view
either. I suspect he is badly quoted out of context.
In some web surfing I could not find this statement Mr. Pike allegedly
made in Nov. 1979, but below is an article he wrote in 1978, in which he
describes the Khmer Rouge as the worst violators of human rights in the
world. Compare this to the June 1977 Nation article* Herman co-authored
with Chomsky and see who was more critical of the Khmer Rouge.
- Steve Denney
* http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/7706-distortions.html
==================================
THE NIGHTMARE IN CAMBODIA
by Douglas Pike
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division,
The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
June 1, 1978
The situation in Cambodia since April 1975, when the Cambodian
communists captured the capital of Phnom Penh and won their war
against the government of Long Nol, has been little short of
incredible. Since then Cambodia has engaged in a full scale war
with neighboring Vietnam and has been drawn close to the Peking
government. Casualties are reported very high on both sides, both
military and civilian. However to comprehend the enormity of the
situation something must be said about the internal Cambodian
situation.
Officials in Cambodia do not deny that the people of the
country are suffering, nor that suffering could be lessened. Rather
they believe that the society must be purified by suffering that is
equally imposed on all. This is seen as a form of equality, the
common shared experience in which all suffer equally. "Having
conquered the enemy," runs the official slogan of new Cambodia, "we
must now conquer ourselves."
The method in pursuit of self-conquest is what might be
characterized as the principle of elimination. Indeed, the actions
of the new rulers of Cambodia since the communist take-over suggest
a handbook of elimination -- a mind-boggling manual of how to raze
an existing society to its foundation. The principal entries into
this manual read as follows:
1. Eliminate the urban center -- irrespective of the argument
of history that civilization did not begin until the advent of the
city and cannot exist without it. Three million Cambodians were
removed from Phnom Penh, leaving behind a ghost city of some
25,000, most of them soldiers. The city's famed cathedral, modeled
after that of Chartres, was dismantled and carted off stone by
stone into the jungle.
2. Eliminate the market place as an institution. Eliminate
money: millions in riel notes showered into the streets of Phnom
Penh when the state bank was dynamited soon after Phnom Penh fell,
and they continue to drift, worthless, through the city. Eliminate
the economic middleman because he is the source of evil and
corruption, as is the economy itself.
3. Eliminate the communication of ideas. There are today no
newspapers, magazines, or radio stations in Cambodia. A two-week
bonfire in Phnom Penh was fed by books, documents, files,
bookshelves and library furniture.
4. Eliminate personality in government. Cambodia today is
controlled by something the people are told is called The
Organization, or Angkar in Cambodia. It is never explained what
this is. It is like the Mafia elsewhere, people know it exists,
fear it, but know nothing about it. When the Angkar representatives
come to the Cambodian villages they tell the people nothing, not
even their names. They simply say that the represent Angkar and
start issuing orders.
5. Eliminate organized religion. A bitter struggle is underway
with the Buddhist Sangha, at one time the strongest social
institution in Cambodia. Most monks have been defrocked and temples
are emptied.
6. Eliminate class. There is no hierarchy. The language is
purged of all forms of social distinction.
In short, a massive drive is underway to eliminate modern
Cambodia and to turn the country back to the pre-French days. Why
this is being done is not clear. In part it appears to be an effort
to solve various social and political problems by turning back the
clock, to the simple pastoral village life days. In part it is the
attractions of the ancient civilization, of the 14th century and
before, when Cambodia was a powerful kingdom in the region.
In any case the result, as can be imagined, has been enormous
social upheaval, starvation, cholera epidemics, mass migration, an
extraordinary death rate among the young, the elderly and the ill,
and an incredible amount of human suffering. Perhaps a million are
dead, perhaps as many as two and a half million.
The result has been, as President Carter noted recently, that
Cambodia today is the worse violator of human rights anywhere on
earth. (1)
------------------------------------------------
(1) White House statement issued Saturday, May 5, 1978.
_________________________________________________________________
James A. Donald
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:10:24 -0700, Stephen Denney
<sde...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> In some web surfing I could not find this statement Mr. Pike
> allegedly made in Nov. 1979, but below is an article he wrote
> in 1978, in which he describes the Khmer Rouge as the worst
> violators of human rights in the world. Compare this to the
> June 1977 Nation article* Herman co-authored with Chomsky and
> see who was more critical of the Khmer Rouge.
Those who changed their minds on the Khmer Rouge before January
1979 were honestly mistaken. Those changed their story after
or during January 1979 (as Chomsky did) were lying, and for the
most part lie to this day, for January 1979 is not the day the
evidence became known, but the day the political implications
of that evidence changed.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
LXu4QA99HBtv8PM+5g89Fm/XYtxPi13bz0DsaklJ
4KzAbDI2QbNSzCoVoDzF0baHz4DinmCWKlrUcMeyB
Dan Clore
I've seen the quote, but don't recall where off the top of
my head. Pike was referring specifically to the peasants, as
opposed to others. Herman could have made this clearer.
DeLong has now responded to Herman with this incredibly
pathetic non-rebuttal:
July 25, 2003
When Chomskyites Attack!
Ah. I see that Noam Chomsky acolyte Edward Herman is unhappy
with me.
I got bored reading Ed Herman, and if I did I'm sure
everybody else did too. So rather than further boring
everyone with responses to fifteen of Herman's
misrepresentations and deceptions, let me confine my reply
to one single point:
Ed Herman claims that Chomsky's defense of Nazi sympathizer
Robert Faurisson was "solely a defense of the right of free
speech and that from beginning to end that was all the
struggle was about for Chomsky."
PUH-LEEAAZE! Chomsky did not write that Faurisson was a Nazi
sympathizer whose right to free speech needed to be defended
on Voltairean principles. Chomsky wrote that Faurisson
seemed to be "a relatively apolitical liberal" who was being
smeared by zionists who--for ideological reasons--did not
like his "findings."
Herman then repeats the lie by claiming that Faurisson's
critics were "unable to provide any credible evidence of
anti-Semitism or neo-Naziism."
Feh!
Shame on Herman. But not surprising. One more sign of the
Chomskyite view of their audience as tools to be
propagandized, rather than as people to be informed.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Stephen Denney
> Message-ID: <3F30D4C...@columbia-center.org>
Thank you, but I think I will reserve judgment until I have had a chance
to read the actual article by Douglas Pike, since Herman and Chomsky tend
to misrepresent the views of those they consider their ideological foes.
>
> DeLong has now responded to Herman with this incredibly
> pathetic non-rebuttal:
I don't think it is pathetic, just a repetition of a particular argument
that has gone on in this newsgroup over the years. For that matter much
the same could be said of Edward Herman's article.
- Steve Denney
> -- end of forwarded message --
>
Josh Dougherty
news:3F30D4C...@columbia-center.org...
Yes, obviously Brad DeLong's "rebuttal" is pathetic, but even more pathetic
is DeLong's supposed "essay" in the first place. I think the last version
of this exact same "article" was released by a Republican-party apparatchik
named Windshuttle. DeLong's supposed "analysis" is the exact same recycled
right-wing smear-job I've read dozens of times for more than a half-century,
by about a dozen or more "authors".
When you can't handle the message, kill the messenger.
Josh Dougherty
news:1vjYa.903$M6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Sorry,
I of course meant a *quarter* century.
(I ain't that old, ...yet)
Russil Wvong
> http://www.counterpunch.org/herman07262003.html
> July 26, 2003
>
> Degraded and Dishonest
> Refuting Brad Delong's Smear Job on Chomsky
> By EDWARD S. HERMAN
First of all, the article in question is here:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000444.html
Here's a response which I posted in the comments section there.
--
I find it interesting that Edward Herman took the time to write a
line-by-line response which is much longer than the original article
(although he doesn't address the second part of Brad DeLong's article,
the original "My Allergic Reaction", which discusses Chomsky's
representation of the early Cold War in "What Uncle Sam Really
Wants"). I wonder how he came across the "Very, Very Allergic
Reaction" article in the first place; my guess is Eric Alterman's blog
entry.
Herman accuses DeLong of name-calling (which is true -- DeLong does
describe Chomsky as a "nut-boy loon"), but Herman certainly doesn't
restrain his own invective: "very short on intellectual integrity",
"preening self-regard and pomposity", "regurgitates foolish patriotic
truths", "displays abysmal ignorance", "rules out evidence and
rational discourse", "no serious analyses or answers", "the trick of a
smear artist", "an obscurantist masterpiece", "much sarcasm and
sneers", "hit-and-run smear job", "goes into a tantrum", "shows that
his own 'good faith' and intellectual integrity are non-existent", "an
apologist for genocidal butchers", "deep-seated chauvinistic biases",
"intellectually degraded and dishonest smear job."
Getting into a flaming match with a professional flamer seems like a
bad idea. Let me try to filter out Herman's insults and address his
arguments.
1. Evidence that Chomsky's admirers seem to form a kind of cult: I've
seen Chomsky fans describe Chomsky as "a god among us" and compare him
to the Taj Mahal. There's a website called Church of Chomsky -- the
maintainer says things like "Lord Chomsky has spoken."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dzpB8.8192%241o7.419698854%40newssvr16.news.prodigy.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C6C7B1F.7C4EF2CE%40ubc.ca
http://www.churchofchomsky.org/
2. That NATO went to war in Bosnia and Kosovo for cynical great power
reasons. From reading Mark Danner's long series of articles in the New
York Review of Books, I think it's a little too simple to say that the
US government was motivated by humanitarian reasons, but it's pretty
close. The Bosnian Serbs were conducting what amounted to mass murder,
complete with death camps. Something like 200,000 civilians died,
mostly Bosnian Muslims; 2.7 million became refugees. In particular,
the siege of Sarajevo was televised worldwide, causing widespread
public revulsion and pressure to _do something_, especially in
Europe. This was followed by the massacre at Srebrenica, where a
supposed "UN safe haven" was overrun. The Bosnian Muslims weren't
selected as US clients for "cynical great power reasons"; the US and
NATO intervened because the Bosnian Muslims were getting slaughtered
on worldwide television.
It's not necessary to believe "higher patriotic truths" about Clinton
and Blair being great humanitarians, only that (a) they're human, and
likely shared the revulsion felt by the public; and (b) public opinion
is an extremely powerful force.
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/bosrep/report_format.cfm?articleid=802&reportid=151
http://www.markdanner.com/nyreview/FULL_LISTING.htm
Herman cites examples of the US backing the weaker side in a conflict,
but I think DeLong's point stands: the Bosnian Muslims were
practically unarmed (in particular, they had no heavy weapons).
One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to the cause of
the underdog. His position on Bosnia and Kosovo surprises me, because
the Muslims were clearly the underdogs.
3. Chomsky's statement that Faurisson appears to be a "relatively
apolitical liberal", and that he's seen no evidence of anti-Semitism
on Faurisson's part.
Chomsky is responding, in part, to a long article discussing
Faurisson's writings by Pierre Vidal-Naquet ("A Paper Eichmann") which
appeared in the September 1980 issue of Esprit. (Vidal-Naquet
mentioned in passing Chomsky's signing a petition in support of
Faurisson's freedom of speech, and described this as "scandalous";
this is what provoked Chomsky to write his letter describing Faurisson
as a "relatively apolitical liberal.")
I don't see anyone could read "A Paper Eichmann" and not see any
evidence that Faurisson is indeed anti-Semitic. How could anyone who
doesn't hate the Jews adhere to the following belief, after doing
extensive historical research on Hitler and World War II? "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." See Section 4 of Vidal-Naquet's article:
http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet92a/
4. Cambodia: I think Bruce Sharp's article does a very good job of
analyzing Chomsky and Herman's writings on Cambodia.
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
Just one point that I'd like to highlight: Herman refers to "the
widespread mainstream claims of two million massacred", but he doesn't
say whether these claims were accurate or not. In fact, it appears
that they were. Bruce Sharp: "Craig Etcheson, formerly the head of
Yale University's Cambodia Genocide Project, notes that as of 1999,
the Documentation Center of Cambodia had mapped the locations of more
than 20,000 mass graves, containing 1,112,829 remains described as
'victims of execution.' ... In any case, Etcheson estimates excess
deaths from all causes (execution, starvation, overwork, and so on) to
be between 2.0 and 2.5 million, with a most-likely figure of roughly
2.2 million deaths."
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/toll.htm
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Josh Dougherty
news:afe9ed76.03080...@posting.google.com...
> "torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.counterpunch.org/herman07262003.html
> > July 26, 2003
> >
> > Degraded and Dishonest
> > Refuting Brad Delong's Smear Job on Chomsky
> > By EDWARD S. HERMAN
>
> First of all, the article in question is here:
> http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000444.html
>
> Here's a response which I posted in the comments section there.
>
> --
> I find it interesting that Edward Herman took the time to write a
> line-by-line response which is much longer than the original article
The "original article", that was "written" by Brad DeLong is simply an exact
copy of the standard issue "spit on Chomsky" article that has been
circulating for dozens of years.
Russil, please re-evaluate your trajectory and stop being just another
Windshuttle or Horowitz.
Despite my disagreements with you, I sincerely think you may actually have
more potential than that.
Josh
Russil Wvong
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000444.html
>
> The "original article", that was "written" by Brad DeLong is simply an
> exact copy of the standard issue "spit on Chomsky" article that has been
> circulating for dozens of years.
I think it actually originates in discussions with fellow leftists
on the Left Business Observer mailing list. (Despite what you
probably think, DeLong is _not_ a right-winger.) For example:
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0206/2024.html
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0206/2032.html
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0206/2040.html
A couple reactions on lbo-talk to the Herman article:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20030721/008923.html
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20030721/008926.html
> Russil, please re-evaluate your trajectory and stop being just another
> Windshuttle or Horowitz.
>
> Despite my disagreements with you, I sincerely think you may actually have
> more potential than that.
Thank you. Not sure what you think my "trajectory" is. :-)
James A. Donald
On 6 Aug 2003 22:47:28 -0700, russi...@yahoo.com (Russil
> One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to the
> cause of the underdog
And when the slaves were marched off to labor in far away
places in Vietnam and Cambodia, where was his devotion to the
underdog?
When he told of us of his visit to North Vietnam, where was his
devotion to the underdog?
When the Mosquito indians were being forcibly collectivised,
where was his devotion to the underdog?
When Vietnam subjugated Laos, where was his devotion to the
underdog?
During the North Vietnamese pacification of South Vietnam,
where was his devotion to the underdog?
When the Soviet Union invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where
was his devotion to the underdog?
Wherever there is tyranny and murder, wherever the master's
boot smashes into the face of a child, you can count on Chomsky
and his fans to deny the crimes of the master and demonize the
child as a CIA agent.
For example, Chomsky was familiar with the extensive news
reports of the Khmer Rouge casually executing people on the
spot for trivial disobedience, but assurred us that executions
were "localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and
unusual peasant discontent", implying that those doing the
executions were the underdogs. This has the superficial sound
of sympathy with the underdog, but the actual substance is lust
for tyranny, admiration of power, admiration of successful
cruelty and violence, and rage and hatred at the weak and
powerless.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
o4XDlFejUqGtqgqrD8fD9e1M2NRgzwLPuuhAB0co
4xRf1F4CA4WzCviUxn0KzIFZEYnWp1E/T8+Xl5iBL
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
> --
>Russil Wvong wrote:
>> One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to the
>> cause of the underdog
>
>
>where was his devotion to the underdog?
http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/chomsky/sld/sld-2-05.html
Chomsky compares the death of a relatively few Miskitos killed by
Sandinistas to the over 100,000 who have died as a result of Western
policy and the drug trade. He also exposed the bribes that the CIA
had paid to Miskitos to prolong the conflict.
His theory of transformational grammar paved the way for the
Nicaraguan Sign Language which helped integrate the Miskitos into
modern Nicaraguan society.
>Wherever there is tyranny and murder, wherever the master's
>boot smashes into the face of a child, you can count on Chomsky
>and his fans to deny the crimes of the master and demonize the
>child as a CIA agent.
Funny, I don't think I've ever heard you admit the fact that even
after the Sandinistas began leaning toward authoritarian, marxist
policies that the people of Nicaragua still had more liberty, rights,
and political involvement than they did in the days of the Somoza
dictatorship.
The Soviets may have provided some funding for the Sandinistas but you
can thank Somoza for the original uprising. Talk about denying the
crimes of the master...
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com (Russil Wvong) wrote:
> > One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to the
> > cause of the underdog
>
> And when the slaves were marched off to labor in far away
> places in Vietnam and Cambodia, where was his devotion to the
> underdog?
Unfortunately, Chomsky often seems less concerned about violence, and
more inclined to excuse it (or cast doubt on it), when it's an
underdog or former underdog (whether it's the Chinese Communists,
the Vietnamese Communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Sandinistas, or
the Palestinians) who's responsible. Contrast his view with that
of Hannah Arendt, from a 1967 panel discussion:
HANNAH ARENDT: ... I very much agree with Mr. Chomsky's assertion
that the nature of new societies is affected by the nature of the
actions that bring them into being. And our experiences with such
new societies are, of course, by no means encouraging. It would be
really fooling ourselves if we looked upon them with enthusiastic
eyes, with which I sympathize but which, I am afraid, simply do
not see the truth. As to the Viet Cong terror, we cannot possibly
agree with it, just as we couldn't agree with the terror of the
National Liberation Army in Algeria. People who did agree with
this terror and were only against the French counter-terror, of
course, were applying a double standard...
CHOMSKY: ... As to the NLF terror, I think Dr. Arendt and I
agree in conclusion but probably disagree on the reasons. For me,
her vision is too absolutistic. I don't accept the view that we
can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so
horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative
costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a
moral position on this -- and I think we should -- we have to
ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not
using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not
using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue
to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I
think the use of terror would be justified. But, as I said before,
I don't think it was the use of terror that led to the successes
that were achieved.
[http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/talks/violence_html]
> When the Soviet Union invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where
> was his devotion to the underdog?
Chomsky was pretty young in 1956, but here's some of his criticisms
of political repression in Czechoslovakia:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9342
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9330
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8980
> Wherever there is tyranny and murder, wherever the master's
> boot smashes into the face of a child, you can count on Chomsky
> and his fans to deny the crimes of the master and demonize the
> child as a CIA agent.
>
> For example, Chomsky was familiar with the extensive news
> reports of the Khmer Rouge casually executing people on the
> spot for trivial disobedience, but assurred us that executions
> were "localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and
> unusual peasant discontent", implying that those doing the
> executions were the underdogs. This has the superficial sound
> of sympathy with the underdog, but the actual substance is lust
> for tyranny, admiration of power, admiration of successful
> cruelty and violence, and rage and hatred at the weak and
> powerless.
I don't often defend Chomsky, but I have to say that your accusations
here seem wildly exaggerated to me. If Chomsky were driven by
admiration for power, he would hardly spend so much time and energy
attacking the United States.
Many people admired Asian communism back in the 1960s and 1970s.
What makes Chomsky different is his reluctance to admit that he
was wrong.
James A. Donald
Russil Wvong:
> >> One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to the
> >> cause of the underdog
James A. Donald:
> > When the Mosquito indians were being forcibly
> > collectivised, where was his devotion to the underdog?
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
> http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/chomsky/sld/sld-2-05.html
>
> Chomsky compares the death of a relatively few Miskitos
> killed by Sandinistas to the over 100,000 who have died as a
> result of Western policy and the drug trade. He also exposed
> the bribes that the CIA had paid to Miskitos to prolong the
> conflict.
As I said, whenever we see the master's boot smashing into the
face of a child, we can rely on Chomsky to demonize the child
as a CIA agent.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
mIfbD49/e0LStSsKFHQ1cI/KJpA3o+q+nXhJA6h3
4QL8vPYXhcC1MjAXRdLYpFfAvt9bR80gFVgy9g5YH
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
> --
>Russil Wvong:
>> >> One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to the
>> >> cause of the underdog
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > When the Mosquito indians were being forcibly
>> > collectivised, where was his devotion to the underdog?
>
>Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>> http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/chomsky/sld/sld-2-05.html
>>
>> Chomsky compares the death of a relatively few Miskitos
>> killed by Sandinistas to the over 100,000 who have died as a
>> result of Western policy and the drug trade. He also exposed
>> the bribes that the CIA had paid to Miskitos to prolong the
>> conflict.
>
>As I said, whenever we see the master's boot smashing into the
>face of a child, we can rely on Chomsky to demonize the child
>as a CIA agent.
Perhaps you should stop bringing up examples where the child really is
a CIA agent then. Although I guess CIA-sponsored atrocities are so
common that it's difficult not to.
Supporting dictators is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
James A. Donald
Russil Wvong:
> > > One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to
> > > the cause of the underdog
James A. Donald:
> > And when the slaves were marched off to labor in far away
> > places in Vietnam and Cambodia, where was his devotion to
> > the underdog?
Russil Wvong:
> Unfortunately, Chomsky often seems less concerned about
> violence, and more inclined to excuse it (or cast doubt on
> it), when it's an underdog or former underdog (whether it's
> the Chinese Communists, the Vietnamese Communists, the Khmer
> Rouge, the Sandinistas, or the Palestinians) who's
> responsible.
When the Palestinians blow up Jews, they are indeed the
underdog. When the Khmer Rouge kill excess slave laborers, and
work the remainder while neglecting to feed them for long
periods, who is the underdog?
> > When the Soviet Union invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia,
> > where was his devotion to the underdog?
>
> Chomsky was pretty young in 1956, but here's some of his
> criticisms of political repression in Czechoslovakia:
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9342
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9330
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8980
None of which contains the word "invasion", because in
Chomsky's universe, the Soviet Union does not invade, it
liberates.
James A. Donald:
> > Wherever there is tyranny and murder, wherever the master's
> > boot smashes into the face of a child, you can count on
> > Chomsky and his fans to deny the crimes of the master and
> > demonize the child as a CIA agent.
> >
> > For example, Chomsky was familiar with the extensive news
> > reports of the Khmer Rouge casually executing people on the
> > spot for trivial disobedience, but assurred us that
> > executions were "localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge
> > influence and unusual peasant discontent", implying that
> > those doing the executions were the underdogs. This has
> > the superficial sound of sympathy with the underdog, but
> > the actual substance is lust for tyranny, admiration of
> > power, admiration of successful cruelty and violence, and
> > rage and hatred at the weak and powerless.
Russil Wvong
> I don't often defend Chomsky, but I have to say that your
> accusations here seem wildly exaggerated to me. If Chomsky
> were driven by admiration for power, he would hardly spend so
> much time and energy attacking the United States.
He attacks the united states primarily when it stands in the
way of domination by tyrants, and the subjugation of their
slaves.
Thus, for example, no real criticism of the United states
meddling in Somalia, while he engages in white hot outraged
criticism of the US meddling in Bosnia. The difference is that
in the one case, the US was attempting to restore a fallen
tyranny, while in the other case it was protecting the
powerless from being murdered.
If the US handled its end of the middle east the way the
Soviets handled their end -- conquest, mass deportation and
mass murder, he would be as happy with the US as he is with the
Soviets.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
xhAAdO84RlLl8lzCBJ3EaxiO+x+2bcsZzgY+B281
4RR7LRo5ItrGwxUvYuwQiaIg2jSXAFrMzdGfdAffZ
Mark Hausen
> > "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000444.html
> >
> > The "original article", that was "written" by Brad DeLong is simply an
> > exact copy of the standard issue "spit on Chomsky" article that has been
> > circulating for dozens of years.
>
> I think it actually originates in discussions with fellow leftists
> on the Left Business Observer mailing list. (Despite what you
True..he's merely a SUV nutter.
Regards
Mark
Dan Clore
> James A. Donald:
> >Russil Wvong wrote:
> >> One thing I do admire about Chomsky is his devotion to the
> >> cause of the underdog
> >
> >When the Mosquito indians were being forcibly collectivised,
> >where was his devotion to the underdog?
Odd that someone rooting for the Miskitos as underdogs
should refer to them as obnoxious, disease-spreading insect
pests.
> http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/chomsky/sld/sld-2-05.html
>
> Chomsky compares the death of a relatively few Miskitos killed by
> Sandinistas to the over 100,000 who have died as a result of Western
> policy and the drug trade. He also exposed the bribes that the CIA
> had paid to Miskitos to prolong the conflict.
>
> His theory of transformational grammar paved the way for the
> Nicaraguan Sign Language which helped integrate the Miskitos into
> modern Nicaraguan society.
>
> >Wherever there is tyranny and murder, wherever the master's
> >boot smashes into the face of a child, you can count on Chomsky
> >and his fans to deny the crimes of the master and demonize the
> >child as a CIA agent.
>
> Funny, I don't think I've ever heard you admit the fact that even
> after the Sandinistas began leaning toward authoritarian, marxist
> policies that the people of Nicaragua still had more liberty, rights,
> and political involvement than they did in the days of the Somoza
> dictatorship.
>
> The Soviets may have provided some funding for the Sandinistas but you
> can thank Somoza for the original uprising. Talk about denying the
> crimes of the master...
Not too surprising from someone whose favored "underdogs"
include every murderous, totalitarian, *right-wing* despot
and dictator of the last half-century. Poor Pinochet, poor
Suharto--
Paulsrb
> http://www.counterpunch.org/herman07262003.html
> July 26, 2003
>
> Degraded and Dishonest
> Refuting Brad Delong's Smear Job on Chomsky
> By EDWARD S. HERMAN
>
> In his "Thoughts" on Chomsky, under the title "My Very,Very Allergic
> Reaction to Noam Chomsky: Khmer Rouge, Faurisson, Milosevic," Brad DeLong is
> long on name calling, smears by selective choice of decontextualized words
> and sentences, straightforward misrepresentation, and numerous assertions
> unsupported by evidence. He is short on tolerance of viewpoints that he
> doesn't like and very short on just plain intellectual integrity.
This allegation is a transparent case of projection, as I shall now
demonstrate with reference to Herman's ongoing defence of his Khmer
Rouge genocide denial.
[snip]
> DeLong naturally fails to acknowledge that our stated aim in
> the book was not to uncover crimes but to see how the "facts have been
> interpreted, filtered, distorted or modified by the ideological institutions
> of the West" (ATC, vii).
The Chomsky-Herman position was that the death toll was 25,000 and had
been exaggerated by a "factor of 100" (ATC, pp138-9); that atrocities
were not centrally directed and were largely a product of peasant
revenge (p139); that the mass murderers had popular support (pp156-8);
that conditions on the slave labour communes were a considerable
achievement (p205); and that the regime was comparable to the American
Revolution (p140), French Liberation (p149) and the Israeli kibbutz
system (p205).
> DeLong seems to think that the "holocaust" occurred instantaneously upon the
> takeover of the KR in 1975. He pretends that full data on this closed regime
> were readily available for a book published three years later.
In fact the full data on Khmer Rouge savagery were available before
they seized power, as Herman well knows, for Congress had conducted
hearings at which the possibility of a Khmer Rouge bloodbath was
discussed at length, with refugee testimony of mass slaughter
countered by Herman's radical comrades who insisted that no bloodbath
would take place. The Congressional report, produced by liberal
Democrats, acknowledged that a cessation of military aid would likely
result in a Khmer Rouge dictatorship and hence "the deliberate
extermination of much of the Cambodian middle class" (Report,
"Supplemental Assistance to Cambodia," Committee on Foreign Relations,
US Senate, 94th Congress, 1st Session, March 21, 1975, p4). The report
then demanded a total cessation of aid, which Congress duly imposed,
producing the expected outcome.
All of these facts are well known to Herman as he denies that anyone
understood the true character of the Khmer Rouge.
> He fails to mention that in speculating here Chomsky (and this writer, his co
> author) also raised the possibility that the worst charges might also turn
> out to be true when all the facts are in, and that we were drawing no
> conclusions about where the truth lies in this range of descriptions (ATC,
> 293).
Thus, by their own admission, Chomsky-Herman were discrediting
atrocity reports in the full knowledge that the worst allegations
might turn out to be true, whereupon it would become apparent that
they had been seeking to conceal one of the most brutal holocausts
since the Nazi era. For the sake of Herman's reputation, it would be
more charitable to assume that he simply did not know what he was
doing when he wrote his book, but this turns out not to be the case.
[snip]
> We quoted similar material from David Chandler and Richard Dudman, highly
> respected analysts of Cambodia. DeLong suppresses our use of these sources as
> well in order to make it appear that any positive notions were unique to his
> smear target. He suppresses the fact that Ponchaud himself complimented
> Chomsky for his "responsible attitude and precision of thought" in his
> writings on Cambodia.
Herman's defence of his genocide denial reduces to the assertion that
other writers such as Chandler and Dudman produced similar
apologetics; assuming the claim to be true, as it clearly is with
respect to Dudman, it is morally comparable to an exoneration of Butz
on the ground that his views are shared by Faurisson and Irving,
albeit with the qualification that Khmer Rouge apologists were denying
ongoing acts of genocide, whereas their neo-Nazi counterparts refer to
atrocities terminated decades before.
[snip]
> DeLong's statement that Chomsky lied here is itself a plain lie. Our
> references were exactly correct. DeLong couldn't find anything written by
> the Economist "staff," but he knows full well that the reference was to a
> letter to the editor, published in and therefore provided by, the paper, by
> Cambodia demographer W. J. Sampson, an economist-statistician who was living
> in Phnom Penh and worked in close contact with the government's central
> statistics office.
Notice the semantic evasion whereby letters *published in* The
Economist are presented as equivalent to analyses *provided by* The
Economist; one wonders how the author would respond to an argument
that letters critical of his record published in The Nation amounted
to an attack on him by The Nation.
[snip]
> DeLong ends on Cambodia asserting that "Chomsky not only said that there
> wasn't conclusive evidence that the Khmer Rouge were genocidal butchers, he
> wrote-falsely-that there was reliable evidence that they weren't genocidal
> butchers." This is one more flat, outright lie. We never said, or hinted,
> anything like this.
Plainly no such hints are contained in the following passages:-
Distortions at Fourth Hand:-
"Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals
as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the
Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided
analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full
range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have
numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas
of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where
brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation
resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports
also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during
the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated
discoveries that massacre reports were false...
"If, indeed, postwar Cambodia is, as he [Jean Lacouture] believes,
similar to Nazi Germany, then his comment is perhaps just, though we
may add that he has produced no evidence to support this judgement.
But if postwar Cambodia is more similar to France after liberation,
where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months
under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American
war, then perhaps a rather different judgement is in order. That the
latter conclusion may be more nearly correct is suggested by the
analyses mentioned earlier."
ATC, pp138-9:-
"If 2-2½ million people, about 1/3 of the population, have been
systematically slaughtered by a band of murderous thugs who have taken
over the government, then [Senator George] McGovern is willing to
consider international military intervention. We presume that he would
not have made this proposal if the figure of those killed were, say,
less by a factor of 100 – that is 25,000 people – though this would be
bad enough. Nor would he have been likely to propose this extreme
measure if the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic
slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather
attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined
military units out of government control, starvation and disease that
are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors."
> We cited every serious source available at the time on the KR killings,
> including Ben Kiernan, Michael Vickery, Stephen Heder, David Chandler,
> Chanda, Ponchaud, and State department Cambodia experts Charles Twining and
> Timothy Carney.
Names 1-3 were Khmer Rouge sympathisers; 4-5 were severely deluded
about the regime; 6 was cited only in order to be vilified; 7-8 were
cited only in order to be misrepresented. Apparently Kenneth Quinn,
Karl D. Jackson, Henry Kamm, etc. do not qualify as serious sources in
the mental world of the genocide denier.
> We quoted Twining's estimate of killings--in the "thousands or hundreds of
> thousands," but with admitted difficulty in getting valid numbers. We quoted
> Twining's superior Richard Holbrooke's estimate of "tens if not hundreds of
> thousands" for "deaths" from all causes. The State Department's Timothy
> Carney estimated the deaths from "brutal, rapid change" (explicitly not "mass
> genocide") as in the hundreds of thousands (ATC, 159-160).
Another lie: Holbrooke cited death tolls of up to 1.2 million and
Carney estimated hundreds of thousands dead by mid-1977, as against
the Chomsky-Herman total of 25,000 dead by 1979.
> We took no position on the accuracy of these numbers, but did note that they
> were far below the widespread mainstream claims of two million massacred.
No examples are given. Khieu Samphan, however, subsequently spoke of 2
million missing, while attributing the entire shortfall to Vietnam
(Time, March 10, 1980). The author has no such escape route; his
"factor of 100" simply cannot be reconciled with the missing
Cambodians.
> On DeLong principles, the State Department analysts and Holbrooke are liars
> and apologists for Pol Pot, downplaying the "conclusive evidence" that he was
> a genocidal butcher.
Setting aside the falsification of their testimony, suppose that these
officials had in fact denied the slaughter; in this case
Chomsky-Herman would be akin to apologists for Stalin, whose views
were consistent with those of State Department officials such as
Joseph Davies.
> DeLong never mentions that our book was explicitly aimed at countering the
> huge and lie-rich propaganda barrage on Cambodia that began upon the KR
> entry into Phnom Penh in April 1975
Quite by coincidence, those who lied turned out to have been telling
the truth, whereas those who were telling the truth turned out to be
lying, an eventuality which becomes all the more curious when we
reflect that the relevant facts were known in advance, as demonstrated
above.
> a barrage and lies which only served a political and ideological purpose and
> did not help the Cambodians in any way whatsoever.
That is, the barrage of lies which turned out to be true were a
component of the "reconstruction of imperial ideology," meaning the
determination to conduct foreign policy in the interests of political
freedom, rather than totalitarian violence, by countering the radical
left's favoured bands of sadists and mass murderers in other parts of
the world, e.g. Afghanistan and Ethiopia.
> DeLong of course ignores our comparative analysis of the difference in
> treatment of Indonesia in East Timor and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Just as critics of Holocaust denial ignore the deniers' comparative
analyses of the difference in treatment between Hitler in Auschwitz
and Tito in Bleiburg, for reasons which are self-evident.
> A larger fraction of the population of East Timor died in the wake of the
> Indonesian aggression than died in Cambodia under Pol Pot
This claim would be irrelevant even if true, unless we assume that
exposure of a lesser genocide excuses denial of a greater genocide;
and it happens to be false, since the figures of hundreds of thousands
dead in the East Timor conflated deaths with declines in the birth
rate and were in fact "plucked from thin air" by Amnesty
International, among others, based on Indonesian census surveys
conducted when much of the population had taken refuge in areas beyond
army control.
See Robert Cribb, "How Many Deaths? Problems in the Statistics of
Massacre in Indonesia (1965-1966) and East Timor (1975-1980)," in
Ingrid Wessel and Georgia Wimhöfer, eds., Violence in Indonesia
(Hamburg: Abera, 2001), pp82-98, estimating 40,000 killed plus equal
numbers dead from starvation and disease, and concluding:-
"Absolutely clear, however, is that the figure of 200,000 should be
dropped from discussion of the death toll in East Timor. Even if the
figures on which it is based were more reliable, it would still
conflate those who were killed with those who were never born. In the
comparative statistics of genocide, this is a mendacious and
unacceptable technique."
> (where many of the deaths were residuals of the starvation conditions facing
> the KR in April 1975).
Setting aside the fact that these conditions were themselves the
result of Khmer Rouge shelling and massacre in Phnom Penh and
elsewhere, this claim directly parallels the techniques of Herman's
neo-Nazi counterparts, who attribute mass deaths in Nazi camps to the
Allied war effort.
[snip]
> DeLong never mentions that estimates of the numbers killed by the U.S. Air
> Force in its bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1975 run into the hundreds of
> thousands, which on his terms should make Nixon and Kissinger into
> "genocidal butchers." He has never so described them, nor assailed those who
> neglect this "genocide."
He does not mention them because they are a fabrication. The most
comprehensive demographic study calculated 310,000 war dead in 1970-5,
of which 40,000 - soldiers and civilians - died in the bombing, as
against 75,000 massacred by the communists: see Marek Sliwinski, Le
Génocide Khmer Rouge: Un Analyse Démographique (Paris: Editions
L?Harmattan, 1995).
> He never mentions that the United States defended and supplied the KR after
> its ouster by the Vietnamese in 1978, which allowed the KR to continue to
> attack Cambodians; this doesn't elicit his indignation over support for
> genocidal butchers.
Again, he does not mention it because it is a fabrication; indeed, the
author's colleague John Pilger was forced to pay "substantial" libel
damages after raising similar charges against the British SAS.
[snip]
In short, I have demonstrated that Herman, to use his own words,
"smears by selective choice of decontextualized words and sentences,
straightforward misrepresentation, and numerous assertions unsupported
by evidence." Further comment is superfluous.
brian turner
> The Chomsky-Herman position was that the death toll was 25,000 and had
> been exaggerated by a "factor of 100" (ATC, pp138-9);
I am confused about what they mean here. You certainly could
reasonably read C/H as meaning 25,000 executed AND dead by disease and
starvation, with many of the former by uncontrolled elements and the
latter being solely the after effects of the war. Yet I wonder it if
does mean that. On page 152 of ATC, they mention that relief workers
in Laos speak of hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths from
malnutrition and disease. Relating this back to the 25,000 comment,
are they really saying that the Khmer Rouge polices are vastly better
than those of the Pathet Lao? That the brilliant KR, unlike the PL,
were able to avoid hundreds of thousands of these deaths? Perhaps
after reading the Porter/Hildebrand praise of KR agricultural policies
one might think this, but were Chomsky and Herman still believing so
in late 1978 and January 1979? I wonder then, if C/H didn't mean
25,000 executions (again, supposedly by peasant revenge mostly outside
of central KR control), and that there probably were hundreds of
thousands of disease deaths, but they should all be blamed on the US.
Obviously that is light years off as well, likely rooted in their
biased treatment of sources (skepticism for accounts they don't like,
acceptance with no skepticism for others).
> In fact the full data on Khmer Rouge savagery were available before
> they seized power, as Herman well knows, for Congress had conducted
> hearings at which the possibility of a Khmer Rouge bloodbath was
> discussed at length,...
Was it discussed any more than a potential one in Vietnam? In other
words, was it suspected then that the Khmer Rouge were very different
from the Vietnamese communists, based on their 1970-75 atrocities?
> ... with refugee testimony of mass slaughter
> countered by Herman's radical comrades who insisted that no bloodbath
> would take place. The Congressional report, produced by liberal
> Democrats, acknowledged that a cessation of military aid would likely
> result in a Khmer Rouge dictatorship and hence "the deliberate
> extermination of much of the Cambodian middle class" (Report,
> "Supplemental Assistance to Cambodia," Committee on Foreign Relations,
> US Senate, 94th Congress, 1st Session, March 21, 1975, p4). The report
> then demanded a total cessation of aid, which Congress duly imposed,
> producing the expected outcome.
>
> All of these facts are well known to Herman as he denies that anyone
> understood the true character of the Khmer Rouge.
C/H do admit in the 1977 Nation piece that both sides committed
atrocities during the war.
> Notice the semantic evasion whereby letters *published in* The
> Economist are presented as equivalent to analyses *provided by* The
> Economist; one wonders how the author would respond to an argument
> that letters critical of his record published in The Nation amounted
> to an attack on him by The Nation.
It is very misleading, and it does seem they were trying to invoke the
reputation of the Economist. However, in the same essay, they say:
"To give an illustration of just one neglected source, the London
Economist (March 26, 1977) carried a letter by W.J. Sampson, who
worked as an economist and statistician for the Cambodian Government
until March 1975, in close contact with the central statistics
office."
So why would they expose their own ruse so soon? Seems likely it was
just unfortunate wording initially. I agree that Herman would go
ballistic if someone said the Nation had provided attacks on his work.
> He does not mention them because they are a fabrication. The most
> comprehensive demographic study calculated 310,000 war dead in 1970-5,
> of which 40,000 - soldiers and civilians - died in the bombing, as
> against 75,000 massacred by the communists: see Marek Sliwinski, Le
> Génocide Khmer Rouge: Un Analyse Démographique (Paris: Editions
> L?Harmattan, 1995).
What does "massacred by the communists" mean exactly? Civilians
thought to be sympathetic to Lon Nol executed by KR soldiers only, or
civilians executed plus killed by the shelling of Phnom Penh and other
such things? Something else?
James A. Donald
On 13 Aug 2003 13:45:28 -0700, bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner)
wrote:
> It is very misleading, and it does seem they were trying to
> invoke the reputation of the Economist. However, in the same
> essay, they say: "To give an illustration of just one
> neglected source, the London Economist (March 26, 1977)
> carried a letter by W.J. Sampson, who worked as an economist
> and statistician for the Cambodian Government until March
> 1975, in close contact with the central statistics office."
Digressing, has it ever been ascertained that this WJ Sampson
is a real person? He never told us who he worked for, which
makes it difficult to verify his existence. Similarly, he
never names any of his supposed associates, instead describing
them, for example "an englishman", an odd practice that makes
it difficult to check his existence.
Regardless of whether there is a real WJ Sampson, his position
was similar to that of Chanda "I feel that such executions
could be numbered in the hundreds or thousands rather than
hundreds of thousands"
Note that he "feels" that they "could" On the one hand he
sounds like a fictitious person. Who refers to his friends as
"an englishman"? On the other hand, if someone was inventing
evidence, he would sound a good deal more confident.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
18fDfroPl2mhBfcVJtPilc9+SKC6FePyMJyISMJA
4TBQohizXXj3HZCAuwhUtZjW9E7dAUOPn7wLlNEBi
Mekong Network
> --
> On 13 Aug 2003 13:45:28 -0700, bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner)
> wrote:
> > It is very misleading, and it does seem they were trying to
> > invoke the reputation of the Economist. However, in the same
> > essay, they say: "To give an illustration of just one
> > neglected source, the London Economist (March 26, 1977)
> > carried a letter by W.J. Sampson, who worked as an economist
> > and statistician for the Cambodian Government until March
> > 1975, in close contact with the central statistics office."
>
> Digressing, has it ever been ascertained that this WJ Sampson
> is a real person? He never told us who he worked for, which
> makes it difficult to verify his existence. Similarly, he
> never names any of his supposed associates, instead describing
> them, for example "an englishman", an odd practice that makes
> it difficult to check his existence.
>
> Regardless of whether there is a real WJ Sampson, his position
> was similar to that of Chanda "I feel that such executions
> could be numbered in the hundreds or thousands rather than
> hundreds of thousands"
>
> Note that he "feels" that they "could" On the one hand he
> sounds like a fictitious person. Who refers to his friends as
> "an englishman"? On the other hand, if someone was inventing
> evidence, he would sound a good deal more confident.
>
Yes, he is real. William Shawcross spoke with him for a 1978 NYRB
article, and Steve Denney posted an excerpt here a while back,
including the following:
"Porter and others have claimed that Sampson is a neglected
authority, `likely' as Porter put it, `to be more accurate than those
which assume a policy of full-scale purge.' But, as it turned out,
nothing was known of him, and at the May hearing Porter had to agree
with Congressman Solarz that Sampson could in theory by `a psychotic'.
Anxious to know more about Sampson's views, I spoke to him and his
wife in Brussels in two long telephone calls. He works for the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization and was about to leave for
a new assignment in New Guinea. He and his wife evidently shared
strong emotions about the wanton destruction of the war itself, and
criticized the US and the Lon Nol governments. But although Sampson
agreed that disease was a real threat, he did not think the evacuation
of Phnom Penh could be explained by the shortage of food; he
considered there were ample supplies of fish and vegetables in and
near the city. To the Khmer Rouge, he told me, Phnom Penh was `Sodom
and Gomorrah. They wanted people out.'
"I asked Sampson how many he believed had died since April 1975. He
said he thought about 10 percent of the 2.5 million evacuated from
Phnom Penh would have died while on the roads. He no longer wanted to
give an estimate of executions but said that altogether `deaths over
and above the normal death rate would not be more than half a
million.' Mr Sampson thus seems an unconvinced and unconvincing
witness on behalf of Khmer Rouge moderation. Neither side of the
propaganda battle has carefully examined all of the sources that it
wishes to exploit."
regards,
Bruce
James A. Donald
> invoke the reputation of the Economist. However, in the same
> essay, they say: "To give an illustration of just one
> neglected source, the London Economist (March 26, 1977)
> carried a letter by W.J. Sampson, who worked as an economist
> and statistician for the Cambodian Government until March
> 1975, in close contact with the central statistics office."
Digressing, has it ever been ascertained that this WJ Sampson
is a real person? He never told us who he worked for, which
makes it difficult to verify his existence. Similarly, he
never names any of his supposed associates, instead describing
them, for example "an englishman", an odd practice that makes
it difficult to check his existence.
Regardless of whether there is a real WJ Sampson, his position
was similar to that of Chanda "I feel that such executions
could be numbered in the hundreds or thousands rather than
hundreds of thousands"
Note that he "feels" that they "could" On the one hand he
sounds like a fictitious person. Who refers to his friends as
"an englishman"? On the other hand, if someone was inventing
evidence, he would sound a good deal more confident.
--digsig
Paulsrb
> psrb...@yahoo.co.uk (Paulsrb) wrote in message news:<a349ef3c.03080...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The Chomsky-Herman position was that the death toll was 25,000 and had
> > been exaggerated by a "factor of 100" (ATC, pp138-9);
>
> I am confused about what they mean here. You certainly could
> reasonably read C/H as meaning 25,000 executed AND dead by disease and
> starvation, with many of the former by uncontrolled elements and the
> latter being solely the after effects of the war. Yet I wonder it if
> does mean that. On page 152 of ATC, they mention that relief workers
> in Laos speak of hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths from
> malnutrition and disease. Relating this back to the 25,000 comment,
> are they really saying that the Khmer Rouge polices are vastly better
> than those of the Pathet Lao? That the brilliant KR, unlike the PL,
> were able to avoid hundreds of thousands of these deaths?
As noted in my previous post, they credit the evacuation of Phnom Penh
with saving many lives. Incidentally, I find no source for their claim
that relief workers attributed hundreds of thousands of deaths to
colonialism and US intervention.
> Perhaps after reading the Porter/Hildebrand praise of KR agricultural policies
> one might think this, but were Chomsky and Herman still believing so
> in late 1978 and January 1979?
They discuss P&H in ATC, pp284-5, where they have nothing but praise
for the book. If you are aware of any recorded criticism by C&H of
P&H, then please share it with us.
> I wonder then, if C/H didn't mean 25,000 executions (again, supposedly by
> peasant revenge mostly outside of central KR control), and that there
> probably were hundreds of thousands of disease deaths, but they should all be > blamed on the US.
This would still be on a par with the arguments of Holocaust deniers,
however, I can see no acknowledgement of such a death toll in their
book.
See also:-
"Although Indonesia has effectively sealed off East Timor from the
outside world, reports have filtered through indicating that there
have been massive atrocities, with estimates running to 100,000
killed, about one-sixth of the population... The media have shown no
interest in examining the atrocities of the Indonesian invaders,
though even in absolute numbers these are on the same scale as those
reported by sources of comparable credibility concerning Cambodia, and
relative to the population, are many times as great." (WCTWF, p130)
> Was it discussed any more than a potential one in Vietnam? In other
> words, was it suspected then that the Khmer Rouge were very different
> from the Vietnamese communists, based on their 1970-75 atrocities?
The Ford Administration repeatedly and emphatically warned of the KR
bloodbath, and their Congressional opponents agreed with them, as we
have seen. Ford, Kissinger and Habib all predicted the atrocities,
with Ford in particular speaking of "an unbelievable horror show" if
Congress cut off the aid and the KR came to power. There were two
responses to these predictions:
(1) The response from the liberal critics in Congress and the media
was that aid must be cut off even though there would be a bloodbath.
(2) The response from anti-war fanatics on the radical left was that
there would be no bloodbath because the KR would be a constructive
force.
After the aid was cut off and the bloodbath took place, the critics
who had argued for permitting a KR victory began to claim that
Nixon/Ford were culpable for that victory, a display of cynicism
worthy of Goebbels and Stalin.
[snip]
> C/H do admit in the 1977 Nation piece that both sides committed
> atrocities during the war.
Which is of no greater moral significance than David Irving's
"admission" that both sides committed atrocities during WW2.
> It is very misleading, and it does seem they were trying to invoke the
> reputation of the Economist. However, in the same essay, they say:
> "To give an illustration of just one neglected source, the London
> Economist (March 26, 1977) carried a letter by W.J. Sampson, who
> worked as an economist and statistician for the Cambodian Government
> until March 1975, in close contact with the central statistics
> office."
>
> So why would they expose their own ruse so soon? Seems likely it was
> just unfortunate wording initially. I agree that Herman would go
> ballistic if someone said the Nation had provided attacks on his work.
As with all of their polemical tricks, they are hoping that their
readers will not notice the deceit.
> > He does not mention them because they are a fabrication. The most
> > comprehensive demographic study calculated 310,000 war dead in 1970-5,
> > of which 40,000 - soldiers and civilians - died in the bombing, as
> > against 75,000 massacred by the communists: see Marek Sliwinski, Le
> > Génocide Khmer Rouge: Un Analyse Démographique (Paris: Editions
> > L?Harmattan, 1995).
>
> What does "massacred by the communists" mean exactly? Civilians
> thought to be sympathetic to Lon Nol executed by KR soldiers only, or
> civilians executed plus killed by the shelling of Phnom Penh and other
> such things? Something else?
It includes such atrocities as the KR evacuation of Oudong, with tens
of thousands killed.
SAP BASIS Consultant
> July 26, 2003
>
> Degraded and Dishonest
> Refuting Brad Delong's Smear Job on Chomsky
> By EDWARD S. HERMAN
>
Stuff deleted...
quote from our 1979 book After the Cataclysm (ATC):
>
> "If a serious study...is someday undertaken, it may well be discoveredthat
> the Khmer Rouge programs elicited a positive responsebecause they dealt with
> fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the
> imperial system.Such a study, however, has yet to be undertaken."
>
> DeLong comments: "Reflect that it was published three full years after the
> Cambodian Holocaust of the Year Zero. Ask yourself whether this is an
> uncovering or a covering of the crimes of an abominable regime." The answer
> is that a single stripped-down quote taken out of context and that
> speculates about what may come from a future study tells nothing to an
> honest person. DeLong naturally fails to acknowledge that our stated aim in
> the book was not to uncover crimes but to see how the "facts have been
> interpreted, filtered, distorted or modified by the ideological institutions
> of the West" (ATC, vii). For DeLong, as for the mainstream, this was an
> illegitimate objective.
Well, suppose that some character, writing in 1943, claimed that
the Nazis " It may be discoeved, elicited a positive response because
they dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and
exacerbated by the imperial system. Such a study, however, has yet
to be undertaken" would you be defending this?
The information about the Khmer Rouge came out in 1975. They did not
waste much time in setting up the killing fields.
I do not think that any serious researcher doubted the truth
about the nature of that regime in 1979.
Please keep in mind that Chomsky should have known about the
history of left-wing Americans being tragically wrong about
the nature of Communist regimes (Did not believe the atrocities
of Stalin until the 1950s, many doubted the Communist
atrocities in China, etc..), so that he should have been careful
in that respect.
Chomsky, writing in the 1960s and 1970s, did not need 3 or 4 years
to verify the various atrocities with which he accused the U.S, so
why was he so wishy-washy about the Khmer Rouge some 3 or 4 years
into their atrocities?
> DeLong seems to think that the "holocaust" occurred instantaneously upon the
> takeover of the KR in 1975.
A lot of this information did come out in 1975.
>He pretends that full data on this closed regime
> were readily available for a book published three years later. He fails to
> mention that in speculating here Chomsky (and this writer, his co-author)
> also raised the possibility that the worst charges might also turn out to be
> true when all the facts are in, and that we were drawing no conclusions
> about where the truth lies in this range of descriptions (ATC, 293).
If somebody claimed in 1942 that "no conclusions" can be drawn about
the Nazis, he would have been called an idiot or a fascist. And
information flowed more readily in the 1970s than in the 1930s and
1940s.
Please keep in mind that the percentage of the Cambodian population
killed by the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s was higher than the
percentage of the German or Polish population killed by the Nazis
in WWII (Though they were not as systematic about killing all
members of ethnic group X, Y or Z).
Chomsky seemed to have drawn various conclusions about the Tet offensive,
Contras, Arab-Israeli issues, other such events within weeks or
months of the events.
Yet, 3 or 4 years into the Khmer Rouge, he still claims that
there is a strong chance that they positively dealt with "fundamental
problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the
imperial system". Always try to blame "imperialism".
maxpou...@post.com
Hello Paul,
I greatly enjoy and highly recommend your amazon book reviews to this ng.
You set a high standard:
Your book selections are a real resource as well.
Cheers.
Josh Dougherty
Hey James, I know you despise democracy to its core, and love mass
murder, but just wait. 2004 will freely elect the Sandinistas - AND -
the FMLN.
I suggest you start making up your pathetic excuses and apologetics
now, before it's too late.
Paulsrb
Thank you very much for these generous comments, which I truly
appreciate.
While I'm on the subject, honesty demands that I confess to an error
of citation in my review of Chomsky's Turning The Tide: the book on
the contras was authored by Sam Dillon, not Christopher Dickey, who
wrote another work on the same subject.
Apologies to anyone who was misled.
Regards,
Paul
maxpou...@post.com
> of citation in my review of Chomsky's Turning The Tide: the book on
> the contras was authored by Sam Dillon, not Christopher Dickey, who
> wrote another work on the same subject.
>
> Apologies to anyone who was misled.
Thank you for the correction.
If only the good doctor would see fit to do the same in the innumerable
reprints of his works. But I have forgotten, the Pope is only infallible
when he speaks ~ex cathedra~ whereas Chomsky is never wrong.
James A. Donald
On 17 Aug 2003 01:23:04 -0700, jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh
> Hey James, I know you despise democracy to its core, and love
> mass murder, but just wait. 2004 will freely elect the
> Sandinistas - AND - the FMLN.
You guys have been saying that for every election. Maybe it
will become true one day for the Sandinistas, though not the
FMLN, but if it does become true, it will be because in every
free election the Sandinistas have been saying they will be
better at implementing IMF austerity.
Polls always show the Sandinistas are going to win, for
everyone fears that if they say they oppose the Sandinistas,
and the Sandinistas win, they will be shot. But no matter what
they say, that is not how they vote.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
PUiNufOSrp7D+RqSxs0zCgYG5I67pvPPhV4GWskm
4YmoPO/byfesGrKpEktp9YpW+0zvHetMiAK3ejrCK
brian turner
> Hey James, I know you despise democracy to its core, and love mass
> murder, but just wait. 2004 will freely elect the Sandinistas - AND -
> the FMLN.
I thought elections in Nicaragua were every 6 years--1984, 1990, 1996,
2002, 2006? Are these mid-term parliamentary elections? And haven't
the Sandinistas and their former opponents come up with a biased 2
party system like in Columbia after their bloody civil war 50+ years
ago? And what of the Sandinistas themselves, are they Figueres style
social-democrats, are they democratic market socialists? Are the
Ortega brothers and any ex-Castroists turned IMF lovers (a transition
Chomsky has spoken of, also Monthly Review founder and Marxist
economist Paul Sweezy did about the USSR/CPSU) still in charge? If
the latter, is there reason for any improvement for the poor?
Josh Dougherty
>
>
> > Hey James, I know you despise democracy to its core, and love mass
> > murder, but just wait. 2004 will freely elect the Sandinistas - AND -
> > the FMLN.
>
> I thought elections in Nicaragua were every 6 years--1984, 1990, 1996,
> 2002, 2006?
You're right. It is '06 for Nicaragua I think. It's 04 for El
Salvador.
> Are these mid-term parliamentary elections? And haven't
> the Sandinistas and their former opponents come up with a biased 2
> party system like in Columbia after their bloody civil war 50+ years
> ago? And what of the Sandinistas themselves, are they Figueres style
> social-democrats, are they democratic market socialists? Are the
> Ortega brothers and any ex-Castroists turned IMF lovers (a transition
> Chomsky has spoken of, also Monthly Review founder and Marxist
> economist Paul Sweezy did about the USSR/CPSU) still in charge? If
> the latter, is there reason for any improvement for the poor?
The Sandinista's today definitely don't very closely resemble the
Sandinistas of the '80s. At this point they're probably a kind of
social-democratic party. Though it most likely would still be more
progressive than the alternative, and would be less likely to go along
with things like the FTAA. I've been reading a number of articles on
this, some optimistic ones from the Left, some mainstream ones, and
some doom-and-gloom screeds from the Right. All seem to forecast that
both the FMLN and the Sandinistas will win the next Presidential
elections in their respective countries. Both groups are more
moderate than they were during the turbulent 1980's, but I knew such
news would still irk James (given their history as evil communist
totalitarian commie enemies) and would likely illicit a humorous
response, which it did.
Josh
Russil Wvong
> Thank you for the correction.
>
> If only the good doctor would see fit to do the same in the innumerable
> reprints of his works. But I have forgotten, the Pope is only infallible
> when he speaks ~ex cathedra~ whereas Chomsky is never wrong.
Tim Dunlop:
I once asked Chomsky, via the Znet discussion forums, whether he'd
ever made a mistake. It went down like a cup of cold sick.
[http://theroadtosurfdom.blogspot.com/2002_09_01_tdg_archive.html#85422582]
I've seen only one instance of Chomsky admitting he was wrong. From
a letter published in the New York Review of Books, February 26, 1970:
Finally, Mr. Huntington objects to my description of the Council
of Vietnamese Studies, which he headed, as "in effect the State
Department task force on Vietnam." He states that this group is
only indirectly related to the State Department, that its influence
is negligible, and that its main function is fund-raising for
scholarly research. An assessment of this statement depends on
records that are not available to me. My identification was based
only on hearsay, and I am quite ready to accept the correction.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11044]
Josh Dougherty
Chomsky was obviously lying to defend communist tyranny. This
fraudulent "admission" of fraudulently denoucing principled defenders
of human rights against mass murder is only more proof of Chomsky's
totalitarian villainy.
Russil Wvong
>
> fraudulent "admission" of fraudulently denoucing principled defenders
> of human rights against mass murder is only more proof of Chomsky's
> totalitarian villainy.
Josh, we're criticizing Chomsky's ego here, not his politics. :-)
Are there any other instances of Chomsky admitting that he was wrong?
Paulsrb
[snip]
> Are there any other instances of Chomsky admitting that he was wrong?
Yes, he was forced to admit error after it was proved that he had
falsely attributed quotations to President Truman in the first edition
of American Power and the New Mandarins. As a result of this incident,
Arthur Schlesinger famously branded him "an intellectual crook."
See the exchange, "Vietnam, the Cold War Other Matters," Commentary,
October 1969; Schlesinger's attack, Letters, December 1969; Chomsky's
reply, Letters, February 1970; and Schlesinger's rejoinder, Letters,
March 1970 - all available (for a small fee) at the Commentary website
archive:-
maxpou...@post.com
> > Thank you for the correction.
> >
> > If only the good doctor would see fit to do the same in the innumerable
> > reprints of his works. But I have forgotten, the Pope is only infallible
> > when he speaks ~ex cathedra~ whereas Chomsky is never wrong.
> a letter published in the New York Review of Books, February 26, 1970:
>
> Finally, Mr. Huntington objects to my description of the Council
> of Vietnamese Studies, which he headed, as "in effect the State
> Department task force on Vietnam." He states that this group is
> only indirectly related to the State Department, that its influence
> is negligible, and that its main function is fund-raising for
> scholarly research. An assessment of this statement depends on
> records that are not available to me. My identification was based
> only on hearsay, and I am quite ready to accept the correction.
> [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11044]
I stand corrected. ;-)
brian turner
this way:
a: Chomsky fabricated the quote
b: no he accidentally substituted a paraphrase for the quote, but the
paraphrase was the same in meaning
c: no he didn't
d: yes he did
...
I don't see how anything can be determined, based on the above. So
what did Truman actually say?
psrb...@yahoo.co.uk (Paulsrb) wrote in message news:<a349ef3c.03082...@posting.google.com>...
James A. Donald
On 20 Aug 2003 22:15:48 -0700, bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner)
wrote:
> This issue has come up many times on afnc, and every time, it
> goes this way:
>
> a: Chomsky fabricated the quote b: no he accidentally
> substituted a paraphrase for the quote, but the paraphrase
> was the same in meaning c: no he didn't d: yes he did
Or to "parpaphrase" your words above "I am a liar, and I intend
to murder you all".
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
c6hGpb4pbcLQvJnXXTPKBhPP5P2KScngZqACjEKU
4dlMdmrCsSH6MzJRlSdBD3sDZyBVEFA6O/AZFr4J/
Russil Wvong
> > Yes, he was forced to admit error after it was proved that he had
> > falsely attributed quotations to President Truman in the first edition
> > of American Power and the New Mandarins. As a result of this incident,
> > Arthur Schlesinger famously branded him "an intellectual crook."
> >
> > See the exchange, "Vietnam, the Cold War Other Matters," Commentary,
> > October 1969; Schlesinger's attack, Letters, December 1969; Chomsky's
> > reply, Letters, February 1970; and Schlesinger's rejoinder, Letters,
> > March 1970 - all available (for a small fee) at the Commentary website
> > archive:-
Thanks for the reference! Okay, that's two.
bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote:
> So what did Truman actually say?
Here's Truman's speech, transcribed by Nathan Folkert:
groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f5414c%40posting.google.com
Nathan Folkert
[snip]
> So what did Truman actually say?
Here is the context from American Power and the New Mandarins in which
Truman is quoted/paraphrased:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201181027.302e2c6f%40posting.google.com
Here is what Truman actually said:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b923300.0201192326.18f5414c%40posting.google.com
Chomsky is using the paraphrase to assert that Truman proclaimed the
Leninist theory of imperialism from the perspective of the empire.
Truman, of course, did no such thing. Nor did Rood, who Chomsky does
quote.
The misattribution is an example of Chomsky being caught in an error,
which he claimed recently has never happened. While deflating this
megalomaniacal delusion is funny, neither this delusion nor a simple
misattribution are indicative of anything worse than a personality
disorder or minor error, respectively.
It is the misuse of the paraphrase, rather than the misattribution,
that is actually significant, demonstrating intellectual dishonesty
and unsupported conclusions. Though the attribution was corrected,
the real error was never corrected.
- Nate
Josh Dougherty
> this way:
>
> a: Chomsky fabricated the quote
> b: no he accidentally substituted a paraphrase for the quote, but the
> paraphrase was the same in meaning
> c: no he didn't
> d: yes he did
> ...
>
> I don't see how anything can be determined, based on the above. So
> what did Truman actually say?
Well, the text has been cited. He said, among other things, that:
"The whole world should adopt the American system ("free enterprise")
which could survive in America only if it became a world system.",
which is the paraphrase Chomsky quotes.
To continue, he also says that "freedom of enterprise" is the primary
freedom from which all others are dependant, and that the American way
of life and all the values we hold dear are dependant on it. He
expands further to say that these values and freedoms we hold dear in
our country are dependant on other countries upholding this particular
freedom in their own countries, and also must allow Americans to
exercise "freedom of enterprise" within their borders. Not to do so
is to commit an act against "the peace" and is a grave threat to
Americans being able to continue living how we do, and a looming
threat to the maintenance of the system we love here.
The usual complaint about this part is the idea that Truman can't
possibly claim the US free enterprise system "could only survive if it
becomes a world system", because, the detractors claim, that would be
admitting some kind of inferiority to some other system besides
free-market capitalism, something Truman wouldn't possibly do.
But he says specifically:
"If this trend is not reversed, the Government of the United States
will be under pressure, sooner or later, to use these same devices to
fight for markets and for raw materials. And if the Government were
to yield to this pressure, it would shortly find itself in the
business of allocating foreign goods among importers and foreign
markets among exporters and telling every trader what he could buy or
sell, and how much, and when, and where. This is precisely what we
have been trying to get away from, as rapidly as possible, ever since
the war. It is not the American way. It is not the way to peace."
So, he's saying that the trend of government decision-making in the
economy, tarrifs, nationalization and controls -- in other parts of
the world -- must be reversed or he sees the US, somewhere down the
line, being forced away from the "American way" ("freedom of
enterprise") and forced into also adopting similar policies in order
to stay in the "fight". Once that happens, our way of life and our
values are doomed and the great system Truman glorifies has not
survived, but has instead become a version of the one he vilifies. So
we must reverse the practices of *other countries* now to stop this
from happening in ours. So, he does make the argument stated in the
paraphrase, likely not viewing it in the context of an
"inferiority/superiority" equation between economic systems, but
rather just conveying the grave "threat" as he saw it.
He also says that US foreign policy and economic policy must be
linked. Another country can not cooperate in a "peaceful
co-existence" politically with the United States, unless it also
adopts the economic system preferred by the US. In essence, not
having your country's markets open to US businesses to penetrate as
they wish is the same act of hostility as a political one, or an act
of war, and whether you want actual peace is irrelevant because you're
not upholding "economic peace" as so defined. Peaceful co-existence
of different types of economies is not an option.
This is probably indicative of the philosophy that has obtained, as
evidenced in a UN vote by the US on Resolution 38/25 of 1983, almost
forty years later, which declared: "The right of every state to choose
its economic and social sytem in accord with the will of its people,
without outside interference in whatever form it takes", which was
vetoed by the US in a vote of 131-1.
But such a position in opposition to the whole world on such an issue
is obvious if we accept Truman's assertions. If we allow this
non-interference policy to obtain, and they choose wrong, it's a grave
threat to American values and the freedoms we hold dear, and so the
option for subjecting them to "outside interference" must remain on
the table, in order to ensure "the peace" and to protect American
freedoms. And this vote is probably indicative of the kind of "mutual
understanding and cooperation" that would most likely have been the
norm of the economic "negotiations" proposed by Truman, even if he
honestly believed they would be something different.
So, Truman ultimately argues that "free markets" must be expanded and
made bigger. "It is the purpose of the coming negotiations to
lower existing barriers to trade so that markets everywhere may grow."
Chomsky uses the phrase "ever-expanding markets" to describe what is
being sought, which to James D. and Nathan triggers images of
"Leninism", even though the notion was used by tons of people before
Lenin, and after. I'd previously agreed that this is a minor
mischaracterization by Chomsky, but only very minor. Truman argues
that markets must expand from where they are currently, but does not
necessarily make an argument for a never-ending expansion. I'd
presume that once the entire world had become an open market for
American "producers" to penetrate as they like, or iow, once 100%
expansion had been completed on every part of the globe, that the
expansion process might have an end, and therefore not be
"ever-expanding" per se, so Truman's argument would no longer apply
and was not requiring "ever-expansion". Or perhaps Truman's
descendants would then be arguing for opening space as a way to expand
markets, or some other device for expanding markets in order to keep
"the peace". Who's to say. In any case, that's an extremely minor
"misrepresentation".
Also, those who don't want their markets opened up to foreign
businesses are not part of the "negotiations", but are automatically
enemies of the "American way" and "peace", because the negotiations
are only about how much and in what way their markets are to be
further opened. The premise of the whole issue has already been
decided, and the "negotiation" is only there to kick around the finer
points.
More or less, Truman's speech is an incarnation of the argument for
Globalization as has been debated throughout the 90's and today.
Subsequent Presidents have all made similar arguments. "Markets must
be open!" as George W. would say, referring to the markets of other
countries, while he raises tariffs on steel at home.
Josh
Nathan Folkert
> > I don't see how anything can be determined, based on the above. So
> > what did Truman actually say?
>
> Well, the text has been cited. He said, among other things, that:
[snip]
Josh writes many paragraphs attempting to reinterpret Truman's words
to mean what he wants them to mean. My suggestion is simply to read
Truman's speech and then read Chomsky's description of the speech.
After that, read Chomsky's quote of Rood and then read Chomsky's
description of the quote.
- Nate
Josh Dougherty
> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote in message news:<66dc0679.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]
> > > I don't see how anything can be determined, based on the above. So
> > > what did Truman actually say?
> >
> > Well, the text has been cited. He said, among other things, that:
>
> [snip]
>
> Josh writes many paragraphs attempting to reinterpret Truman's words
> to mean what he wants them to mean.
Nathan writes an evasion without showing any flaw in the
"reinterperetation", hoping the loaded wording of the evasion will
suffice.
Josh
Nathan Folkert
[snip]
> Nathan writes an evasion without showing any flaw in the
> "reinterperetation", hoping the loaded wording of the evasion will
> suffice.
I had not read your post when I responded, since I know what Truman
said, having read his speech long ago, and I know that it bears no
resemblance to what Chomsky said, having compared them long ago.
Therefore I have no interest in watching you twist logic and the
English language in order to torture a meaning out of the text that is
not intended.
Since you want to stay on the topic, I will at least show you the
courtesy of responding to your comments that are not directly related
to an interpretation of Truman's speech. I expect that any literate
person can easily discern the difference between what Truman said and
the fabrications that you have presented here.
My response to your post:
jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
[snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
speech. I need add nothing more here]
> The usual complaint about this part is the idea that Truman can't
> possibly claim the US free enterprise system "could only survive if it
> becomes a world system", because, the detractors claim, that would be
> admitting some kind of inferiority to some other system besides
> free-market capitalism, something Truman wouldn't possibly do.
No, the usual complaint is that Truman is not arguing the Leninist
theory of imperialism, while Chomsky is saying that Truman is arguing
the Leninist theory of imperialism. The complaint above was invented
by you, because you believe that the US free enterprise system
actually is inferior to imperialism, fascism, and communism.
[snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
speech. I need add nothing more here]
> This is probably indicative of the philosophy that has obtained, as
> evidenced in a UN vote by the US on Resolution 38/25 of 1983, almost
> forty years later, which declared: "The right of every state to choose
> its economic and social sytem in accord with the will of its people,
> without outside interference in whatever form it takes", which was
> vetoed by the US in a vote of 131-1.
Either you have not read UN Resolution 38/25, or you are lying. This
resolution did not propose "the right of every state to choose its
economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
"*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis), which has been reiterated in
numerous UNGA resolutions adopted with and without vote, in the midst
of a series of positions and actions that are themselves extensions of
earlier resolutions having to do with the implementation of the New
International Economic Order, the Charter of the Economic Duties and
Rights of States, and a resolution concerning the "national experience
in achieving
far-reaching social and economic changes for the purpose of social
progress".
Also, the US cannot veto a General Assembly resolution. 38/25 was, in
fact, adopted.
Seriously, where did you get this particular poorly produced piece of
propaganda? It's rare to see such an amateurish hack job.
[snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
speech. I need add nothing more here]
> Chomsky uses the phrase "ever-expanding markets" to describe what is
> being sought, which to James D. and Nathan triggers images of
> "Leninism", even though the notion was used by tons of people before
> Lenin, and after.
It does not trigger "images of Leninism". That's what the theory is
called. Lenin was, of course, just expanding on Hobson, but no one
who calls it the "Hobsonian theory of imperialism" expects people to
know what they're talking about.
[snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
speech. I need add nothing more here]
- Nate
Mekong Network
> nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> > Josh writes many paragraphs attempting to reinterpret Truman's words
> > to mean what he wants them to mean.
>
> Nathan writes an evasion without showing any flaw in the
> "reinterperetation", hoping the loaded wording of the evasion will
> suffice.
>
> Josh
Actually, Josh, I think he was hoping that simply reading what Truman
actually said would suffice.
regards,
Bruce
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>Josh Dougherty wrote:
>> This is probably indicative of the philosophy that has obtained, as
>> evidenced in a UN vote by the US on Resolution 38/25 of 1983, almost
>> forty years later, which declared: "The right of every state to choose
>> its economic and social sytem in accord with the will of its people,
>> without outside interference in whatever form it takes", which was
>> vetoed by the US in a vote of 131-1.
>
>Either you have not read UN Resolution 38/25, or you are lying. This
>resolution did not propose "the right of every state to choose its
>economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
>without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
>"*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis), which has been reiterated in
>numerous UNGA resolutions adopted with and without vote, in the midst
>of a series of positions and actions that are themselves extensions of
>earlier resolutions having to do with the implementation of the New
>International Economic Order, the Charter of the Economic Duties and
>Rights of States, and a resolution concerning the "national experience
>in achieving far-reaching social and economic changes for the purpose
>of social progress".
How does that contradict what Josh said?
>Also, the US cannot veto a General Assembly resolution. 38/25 was, in
>fact, adopted.
For what it's worth. When the world's largest superpower votes
against a resolution it is a clear signal to the world that the
resolution will not be enforced.
>Seriously, where did you get this particular poorly produced piece of
>propaganda? It's rare to see such an amateurish hack job.
Your attempt to discredit Josh would've gone a lot further had you
attempted to explain why the U.S. would vote against such a widely
held view or why, in 1983, the General Assembly felt a need to
reaffirm it.
Josh Dougherty
>
> [snip]
>
> > Nathan writes an evasion without showing any flaw in the
> > "reinterperetation", hoping the loaded wording of the evasion will
> > suffice.
>
> I had not read your post when I responded, since I know what Truman
> said, having read his speech long ago,
You've made contrary arguments about what Truman has said, and I see
no reason to believe that you "know what Truman said" now anymore than
you did two years ago. In fact it seems your knowledge of it has
deteriorated, not improved, over time.
> and I know that it bears no
> resemblance to what Chomsky said, having compared them long ago.
To wildly differing results, depending on what you "want it to mean"
quite apparently.
> Therefore I have no interest in watching you twist logic and the
> English language in order to torture a meaning out of the text that is
> not intended.
No, you have no interest in reading what I said about the speech
because each sentiment I outlined as coming from the speech is
contained in it. You can lie to yourself all you like.
If you would have taken the time, you would have noticed that I was
not referring to Chomsky or what he said, but rather was responding to
a question simply asking what Truman said. I therefore outlined a few
key points that Truman made in the speech.
> Since you want to stay on the topic, I will at least show you the
> courtesy of responding to your comments that are not directly related
> to an interpretation of Truman's speech. I expect that any literate
> person can easily discern the difference between what Truman said and
> the fabrications that you have presented here.
I've described sentiments expressed in Truman's speech. You don't
wish to address them precisely because this is the case.
> My response to your post:
>
> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message
> news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
> intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
> speech. I need add nothing more here]
Yes, please someone do, and explain to me which points I listed that
are not in Truman's speech.
> > The usual complaint about this part is the idea that Truman can't
> > possibly claim the US free enterprise system "could only survive if it
> > becomes a world system", because, the detractors claim, that would be
> > admitting some kind of inferiority to some other system besides
> > free-market capitalism, something Truman wouldn't possibly do.
>
> No, the usual complaint is that Truman is not arguing the Leninist
> theory of imperialism, while Chomsky is saying that Truman is arguing
> the Leninist theory of imperialism.
Yes, that's one disingenous complaint, usually requiring evading
discussion of what he said, like you're doing here. But I was talking
of a slightly different complaint.
> The complaint above was invented by you,
No, it certainly wasn't. It was made, and probably "invented", by
James Donald:
Joseph Michael Bay:
> 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.
James A. Donald:
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.
(end quote)
James is right in part. Truman does not argue a "doomed nature". He
sees a potential doom that he seems very concerned about, but he does
see a way to avoid it: expanding markets.
(frustrated ad hominem bile snipped)
> [snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
> intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
> speech. I need add nothing more here]
Yes, please do, and someone explain where I have asserted any
sentiment as appearing in the speech that does not.
> > This is probably indicative of the philosophy that has obtained, as
> > evidenced in a UN vote by the US on Resolution 38/25 of 1983, almost
> > forty years later, which declared: "The right of every state to choose
> > its economic and social sytem in accord with the will of its people,
> > without outside interference in whatever form it takes", which was
> > vetoed by the US in a vote of 131-1.
>
> Either you have not read UN Resolution 38/25, or you are lying. This
> resolution did not propose "the right of every state to choose its
> economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
> without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
> "*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis),
Yes, I've read the resolution. The text may be read here:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r025.htm
Yes, it "re-affirms" the right, and I used the word "declared" (though
not "proposed"). So, I should have said the former. Not a very big
deal I'd say, and hardly merits the condescension you're using to coat
your evasion.
In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second....where
was the right "affirmed" in the first place, and why did the US go
against the rest of the world in voting against the resolution, in
your estimation?
> which has been reiterated in
> numerous UNGA resolutions adopted with and without vote, in the midst
> of a series of positions and actions that are themselves extensions of
> earlier resolutions having to do with the implementation of the New
> International Economic Order, the Charter of the Economic Duties and
> Rights of States, and a resolution concerning the "national experience
> in achieving far-reaching social and economic changes for the purpose of
> social progress".
>
> Also, the US cannot veto a General Assembly resolution. 38/25 was, in
> fact, adopted.
Right, another innacurate term on my part. The US voted against it
alone, not "veto", since, as you say, the US cannot veto a GA Res.
> Seriously, where did you get this particular poorly produced piece of
> propaganda? It's rare to see such an amateurish hack job.
Nathan I think you're rather frustrated and angry, and are trying way
too hard here. I used a couple incorrect words in my description.
The implication still seems to stand. Again, why did the US oppose
the world in voting against this particular resolution in your
estimation?
> [snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
> intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
> speech. I need add nothing more here]
Why do you keep mentioning my accurate description of points expressed
in Truman's speech, while not discussing them at all? I too invite
readers to actually read what I said in response to a question about
what Truman said. Then, if anyone believes any of those points don't
exist in the speech. I'd like to hear why.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Josh writes many paragraphs attempting to reinterpret Truman's words
> > > to mean what he wants them to mean.
> >
> > Nathan writes an evasion without showing any flaw in the
> > "reinterperetation", hoping the loaded wording of the evasion will
> > suffice.
> >
> > Josh
>
> Actually, Josh, I think he was hoping that simply reading what Truman
> actually said would suffice.
That has no resemblence to what I'm responding to. Nathan mentions
reading Truman and hoping that will suffice in reference to judging
Chomsky's statements on that basis.
My post discussing key points of the Truman speech, OTOH, is supposed
to be discared by Nathan's loaded one-line evasion.
Josh
Paulsrb
[snip]
> Yes, please someone do, and explain to me which points I listed that
> are not in Truman's speech.
Since you asked, Truman said:-
"This organization [i.e. the International Trade Organisation] would
apply to commercial relationships the same principle of fair dealing
that the United Nations is applying to political affairs. Instead of
retaining unlimited freedom to commit acts of economic aggression, its
members would adopt a code of economic conduct and agree to live
according to its rules. Instead of adopting measures that might be
harmful to others, without warning and without consultation, countries
would sit down around the table and talk things out. In any dispute,
each party would present its case. The interests of all would be
considered, and a fair and just solution would be found. In economics,
as in international politics, this is the way to peace."
By contrast, your construction of the doctrines stated in his speech
includes the following:-
> > > But such a position in opposition to the whole world on such an issue
> > > is obvious if we accept Truman's assertions. If we allow this
> > > non-interference policy to obtain, and they choose wrong, it's a grave
> > > threat to American values and the freedoms we hold dear, and so the
> > > option for subjecting them to "outside interference" must remain on
> > > the table, in order to ensure "the peace" and to protect American
> > > freedoms.
Thus Truman's call for the peaceful resolution of trade disputes on
principles analogous to those employed in respect of political
disputes by the United Nations is perverted by you into the
enunciation of a doctrine legitimising US interference for the purpose
of imposing its economic system on the rest of the world.
We may note, parenthetically, that the right to impose protectionism,
which, by attacking Truman's argument, you and Chomsky implicitly
defend, is first and foremost the right of the state to commit
economic aggression against its domestic population by denying them
the choice of foreign products. In fact, by elementary logic, the
practice whose abolition you and Chomsky apparently find so
objectionable is primarily an attack on the domestic poor, since they
benefit to a considerably greater extent than the rich from the
ability to buy cheaper foreign goods and services.
[snip]
> > > This is probably indicative of the philosophy that has obtained, as
> > > evidenced in a UN vote by the US on Resolution 38/25 of 1983, almost
> > > forty years later, which declared: "The right of every state to choose
> > > its economic and social sytem in accord with the will of its people,
> > > without outside interference in whatever form it takes", which was
> > > vetoed by the US in a vote of 131-1.
> >
> > Either you have not read UN Resolution 38/25, or you are lying. This
> > resolution did not propose "the right of every state to choose its
> > economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
> > without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
> > "*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis),
>
> Yes, I've read the resolution. The text may be read here:
> http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r025.htm
>
> Yes, it "re-affirms" the right, and I used the word "declared" (though
> not "proposed"). So, I should have said the former. Not a very big
> deal I'd say, and hardly merits the condescension you're using to coat
> your evasion.
To repeat: the resolution "Reaffirms the sovereign and inalienable
right of every State to choose its economic and social system in
accordance with the will of its people, without outside interference
in whatever form it takes," thus extending the right of sovereign
immunity to the choice of fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and
genocide as economic and social systems.
The best comment on the doctrine which the resolution proposes, and
which you apparently regard as innocuous, was delivered by Abraham
Lincoln more than a century ago:-
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all
mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man
to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while
with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please
with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two,
not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name —
liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective
parties, called by two different and incompatible names — liberty and
tyranny... The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for
which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf
denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially
as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not
agreed upon a definition of the word liberty..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2FC41EA5
I need hardly remind you of the context in which this statement was
made.
> In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second... where
> was the right "affirmed" in the first place, and why did the US go
> against the rest of the world in voting against the resolution, in
> your estimation?
The explanation is very simple: Reagan Administration officials
understood that UN resolutions mean what they say, and unlike you they
were reluctant to endorse, without a moment's thought, calls for the
sovereign protection of fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and
genocide.
Mekong Network
I think Nathan's point is very simple: Chomsky's description of
Truman's remarks bears no resemblence at all to what Truman actually
said. All one has to do to verify that is to read Chomsky's borrowed
"paraphrase," and then compare it to the text of Truman's speech.
Perhaps I misunderstood the point of your post, but it seemed to me
that you were in essence saying, "Before you come to the obvious
conclusion that that paraphrase doesn't reflect what Truman said,
please read my lengthy interpretation of what Truman actually
_meant_."
regards,
Bruce
Josh Dougherty
> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > camb...@aol.com (Mekong Network) wrote in message news:<67874ff1.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > Josh writes many paragraphs attempting to reinterpret Truman's words
> > > > > to mean what he wants them to mean.
> > > >
> > > > Nathan writes an evasion without showing any flaw in the
> > > > "reinterperetation", hoping the loaded wording of the evasion will
> > > > suffice.
> > > >
> > > > Josh
> > >
> > > Actually, Josh, I think he was hoping that simply reading what Truman
> > > actually said would suffice.
> >
> > That has no resemblence to what I'm responding to. Nathan mentions
> > reading Truman and hoping that will suffice in reference to judging
> > Chomsky's statements on that basis.
> >
> > My post discussing key points of the Truman speech, OTOH, is supposed
> > to be discared by Nathan's loaded one-line evasion.
> >
> > Josh
>
> I think Nathan's point is very simple: Chomsky's description
No, Nathan's point was to slam me and use loaded derogatory language
to lead people to a conclusion about what I said before reading it.
That's the point to which I responded.
Then, after side-swiping me, he went on to say something about
Truman/Chomsky....
> of Truman's remarks bears no resemblence at all to what Truman actually
> said. All one has to do to verify that is to read Chomsky's borrowed
> "paraphrase," and then compare it to the text of Truman's speech.
No, I think he was talking about Chomsky's overall analysis, not James
Warburg's paraphrase. The paraphrase is a pretty accurate description
of sentiments in the speech, whatever you think of Chomsky's usage and
context. The content of the paraphrase is usually not the point of
contention, though Nathan has also recently reversed himself on that
too in a past post.
> Perhaps I misunderstood the point of your post, but it seemed to me
> that you were in essence saying, "Before you come to the obvious
> conclusion that that paraphrase doesn't reflect what Truman said,
> please read my lengthy interpretation of what Truman actually
> _meant_."
I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm outlining some of the key points
expressed in the speech as I see them, and I'm willing to discuss any
ones that others think are in error.
Josh
Josh Dougherty
>
> [snip]
> > Yes, please someone do, and explain to me which points I listed that
> > are not in Truman's speech.
>
> Since you asked, Truman said:-
>
> "This organization [i.e. the International Trade Organisation] would
> apply to commercial relationships the same principle of fair dealing
> that the United Nations is applying to political affairs. Instead of
> retaining unlimited freedom to commit acts of economic aggression, its
> members would adopt a code of economic conduct and agree to live
> according to its rules. Instead of adopting measures that might be
> harmful to others, without warning and without consultation, countries
> would sit down around the table and talk things out. In any dispute,
> each party would present its case. The interests of all would be
> considered, and a fair and just solution would be found. In economics,
> as in international politics, this is the way to peace."
>
> By contrast, your construction of the doctrines stated in his speech
> includes the following:-
The above does not include all or part of the doctrines I was
referring to below, nor did I assert that Truman, in his speech, made
a call for violent interference. He did not. He outlined a few
principles about what he thinks freedom is, what economic aggression
is, and what it could mean for our freedoms.
I then editorialized about a policy 40 years later, and suggested that
the guiding ideology for such positions can be found, to some degree,
in some of the points of Truman's speech, namely, those I outlined in
the directly preceeding paragraphs...
> > > > But such a position in opposition to the whole world on such an issue
> > > > is obvious if we accept Truman's assertions. If we allow this
> > > > non-interference policy to obtain, and they choose wrong, it's a grave
> > > > threat to American values and the freedoms we hold dear, and so the
> > > > option for subjecting them to "outside interference" must remain on
> > > > the table, in order to ensure "the peace" and to protect American
> > > > freedoms.
>
> Thus Truman's call for the peaceful resolution of trade disputes on
> principles analogous to those employed in respect of political
> disputes by the United Nations is perverted by you into the
> enunciation of a doctrine legitimising US interference for the purpose
> of imposing its economic system on the rest of the world.
Not so. To clarify, in this paragraph (two paragraphs actually, the
first is cut) I was not referring to Truman's call for the tactic of a
peaceful negotiation process to determine how much and how fast to
expand everyone's markets. The "assertions" I was referring back to
here - in relation to an aside about the US policy of voting against
the UN Res - were some of the basic ideological pretexts mentioned in
the preceeding sections, which would seem to guide both tactics
equally well:
all the freedoms and values we hold dear in America should be
conflated with freedom of enterprise, if other countries don't adhere
to this freedom in their countries, then ours would be endangered
here, and the American Way and everything Americans value in their
daily lives is being gravely threatened by "aggression" abroad.
Those principles, among others, are ones I said he did outline in his
speech, and in this particular passage I was editorializing about how
a policy carried out 40 years later may be "indicative of" acceptance
of such principles, not attributing what I wrote in that passage as a
statement made by Truman in the speech.
It seems to me that if those things are to be accepted, then such
things as interference and violence certainly can not be ruled out,
even if the policy enunciated later in Truman's speech should be taken
as the first or best option for expanding markets. If that doesn't
work, or doesn't work enough, it would seem to me that the principles
would and should keep interference and violence on the table because
Americans certainly could not stand by and watch their lives and
values undermined or destroyed by some country in Asia deciding to
regiment its own economy.
If you don't agree that people would and should feel this way if
accepting the principles, fine. But, it seems to me they should. In
any case, I was not suggesting that Truman made an enunciation for
violent interference in his speech. He did not.
So, yes, this is certainly a "point I listed" in the post "that is not
in Truman's speech" as such, nor was it intended to be. It was an
editorial passage about how one thing seems related to the other. So,
my question at the top was perhaps badly worded. I was hoping the
"points" in question would be understood as those that I said Truman
said in the speech.
Some cues would be: "He said, among other things, that...", "he also
says that..", "He expands further to say", "he says specifically",
"he's saying that..", ...and so on.
(snip arguments about protectionism and UN vote)
Josh
James A. Donald
On 23 Aug 2003 07:34:48 -0700, camb...@aol.com (Mekong
> I think Nathan's point is very simple: Chomsky's description
> of Truman's remarks bears no resemblence at all to what
> Truman actually said. All one has to do to verify that is to
> read Chomsky's borrowed "paraphrase," and then compare it to
> the text of Truman's speech.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood the point of your post, but it seemed
> to me that you were in essence saying, "Before you come to
> the obvious conclusion that that paraphrase doesn't reflect
> what Truman said, please read my lengthy interpretation of
> what Truman actually
What appears to have happened is that in each retelling of
Truman's speech, Truman became ever more openly Leninist, the
final retelling being Chomsky's
Chomsky purported to cite Truman, when in fact he cited a
distortion at third hand, making Chomsky's version (the most
Leninist of them all) a distortion at fourth hand, which is
fairly typical of Chomsky citations, which cite neglected
sources, sources whose neglect is usually well deserved, and
which even so, seldom take a position as extreme as that which
Chomsky attributes to them.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
qIx5sWGanHUeZl3p0lE+FzLEUXRFldYX323GaCQv
4yqNSLHsXG/GDzTIlCm8dRKFcML0WbRYVgKBf75Ml
Nathan Folkert
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
[snip]
> >[UNGA RES 38/25] did not propose "the right of every state to choose
> >its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
> >without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
> >"*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis), which has been reiterated in
> >numerous UNGA resolutions adopted with and without vote, in the midst
>
> How does that contradict what Josh said?
Josh implies that this was a resolution to establish this particular
right of states. This was not a resolution to establish this
particular right of states, but was instead a resolution concerning
the implementation of certain programs in which this right was
mentioned as context.
Since this same passage has appeared in numerous other resolutions
that were adopted both with and without vote, it would appear that the
US has no quarrel with this specific right, but rather with the
programs that this resolution was enacting.
If you want to learn more about these programs and report back to us
on why the US opposed them, by all means do so, but since it has
nothing to do with the establishment of the right of states to choose
their own social and economic systems, apart from a reference in
passing, it has no particular relevance to the current discussion and
no merit in Josh's argument.
[snip]
> >Seriously, where did you get this particular poorly produced piece of
> >propaganda? It's rare to see such an amateurish hack job.
>
> Your attempt to discredit Josh would've gone a lot further had you
> attempted to explain why the U.S. would vote against such a widely
> held view or why, in 1983, the General Assembly felt a need to
> reaffirm it.
Resolutions "reaffirm" and "recall" various principles and past votes
all the time. Doesn't mean that you're voting against them when you
reject the resolution for some other reason (except propagandists will
spin it that way, of course).
The US probably voted against this resolution because it did not see
the implementation of the New International Economic Order, or the
Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States, or this
particular project on the "national experience in achieving
far-reaching social and economic changes for the purpose of social
progress" as being in its interests. I am sure if you are interested,
you can find out why.
Several other major industrial powers abstained from the vote,
including Japan, the UK, and Germany. I have not looked at these
programs in detail, though I know that the Charter in particular
contained some controversial points (though it also called for free
trade between states). That would be my guess; if you are interested,
please do some research and let us know what you find out.
Nathan Folkert
[snip]
> > In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second... where
> > was the right "affirmed" in the first place, and why did the US go
> > against the rest of the world in voting against the resolution, in
> > your estimation?
>
> The explanation is very simple: Reagan Administration officials
> understood that UN resolutions mean what they say, and unlike you they
> were reluctant to endorse, without a moment's thought, calls for the
> sovereign protection of fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and
> genocide.
Recall that the title of this resolution is "National experience in
achieving far-reaching social and economic changes for the purpose of
social progress", not "the sovereign right of states to choose their
own economic and social systems".
The rejection of this resolution didn't have anything to do with this
right, even if you believe it should have. The right is already
reiterated in several other resolutions adopted with and without vote,
and is enshrined in the United Nations Charter in the principle of
sovereign equality (actually, in the UN Charter the principle is more
general. There is no reference to the "will of the people", which
would arguably exclude oppressive authoritarian dictatorship from
having the authority to determine the social and economic system of
the state). Respect for sovereignty (or rhetoric to that effect) has
been the norm for four hundred years, meant to help maintain peace
between states.
Not that any state takes principles of sovereignty too seriously
(except when it applies to themselves). If we pretend for a moment
that the resolution actually was about what Josh claims, we see such
states as France, the USSR, and Cuba affirming this right despite
widespread French interference in West African internal affairs, KGB
agents constructing a communist state in Afghanistan, and Cuban agents
ferrying arms to Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador, all right around
the same time as this vote. And, if we are to consider the "will of
the people", you have states like Iraq, Cuba, Indonesia, and Chile
asserting a principle that would not apply to their autocratic
governments.
So if the resolution was really about this right, then at least the US
was being honest. But the resolution was not about this right.
- Nate
Nathan Folkert
> nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > Therefore I have no interest in watching you twist logic and the
> > English language in order to torture a meaning out of the text that is
> > not intended.
>
> No, you have no interest in reading what I said about the speech
> because each sentiment I outlined as coming from the speech is
> contained in it. You can lie to yourself all you like.
I chose not to respond to your post because anyone reading Truman who
is not inflamed with passion to protect Chomsky's good name will find
your explanation of Truman's words bizarre and dishonest. I don't
need to read it in detail; you start lying in your first sentence.
Truman does not say that "freedom of enterprise" is the "primary
freedom from which all others are dependant". This level of accuracy
seems to be maintained throughout your post. I have neither the time
nor the energy to respond in detail to each of your lies and
inaccuracies when it is easier to refer the reader to the text in
question, where they will find a speech that bears little resemblance
to your interpretation of it.
[snip]
> > No, the usual complaint is that Truman is not arguing the Leninist
> > theory of imperialism, while Chomsky is saying that Truman is arguing
> > the Leninist theory of imperialism.
>
> Yes, that's one disingenous complaint, usually requiring evading
> discussion of what he said, like you're doing here. But I was talking
> of a slightly different complaint.
Chomsky claimed that Truman's words supported the belief that "we can
escape recurrent economic stagnation or internal regimentation only
with every expanding markets". He claimed that the "natural
counterpart" to this doctrine was the indefinite expansion of an
American Empire. This is an articulation of the Leninist theory of
imperialism, and it is not what Truman said, as anyone can determine
by reading what Truman said.
> > The complaint above was invented by you,
>
> No, it certainly wasn't. It was made, and probably "invented", by
> James Donald:
James Donald does not argue that Truman would never admit the
inferiority of capitalism. James Donald says that Truman did not
admit the inferiority of capitalism. The former argument implies that
if capitalism did have the faults attributed to it by Lenin and
Chomsky, Truman would not admit them. The latter argument states that
Truman did not attribute to capitalism the faults that are attributed
to it by Lenin and Chomsky. That is, Truman did not articulate the
Leninst theory of imperialism.
[snip]
> > Either you have not read UN Resolution 38/25, or you are lying. This
> > resolution did not propose "the right of every state to choose its
> > economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
> > without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
> > "*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis),
>
> Yes, I've read the resolution.
Then you are lying. Thank you for clearing that up.
> The text may be read here:
> http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r025.htm
>
> Yes, it "re-affirms" the right, and I used the word "declared" (though
> not "proposed"). So, I should have said the former. Not a very big
> deal I'd say, and hardly merits the condescension you're using to coat
> your evasion.
You imply above that the US voted against a resolution on "the right
of every state to choose its economic and political system...". We
know that you meant to imply this, because this is how you use the
resolution in your surrounding argument -- to show that the US is
against the right of every state to choose its economic and political
system. The US actually voted against a resolution on "national
experience in achieving far-reaching social and economic changes...",
which makes it very, very easy to spot your lie.
When the Amber Alert bill was passed through congress recently,
politicians attached a rider to the bill called the RAVE Act, which
was a highly controversial bill giving broad power to the government
to infringe upon the rights of businesses such as dance clubs, concert
venues, etc. whose clientele might use their premises to take illegal
drugs. Your argument above is equivalent in honesty and intellectual
integrity as that of someone who accuses a senator voting against the
Amber Alert Bill of supporting pedophilia, when in fact the reason he
is voting against it has nothing to do with Amber Alert (not that
voting against Amber Alert alone would be supporting pedophilia,
either), but rather to do with the draconian rider that Biden got
attached to it.
> In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second....where
> was the right "affirmed" in the first place,
The UN Charter.
> and why did the US go against the rest of the world in voting against
> the resolution, in your estimation?
I have no idea -- I am unfamiliar with the arguments for and against
the various programs this resolution mentions. I have no interest in
researching this for you, because it is completely irrelevant to the
current discussion, which was about the US "vetoing" the sovereign
rights of states, not the US voting against the implementation of some
UN economic development programs. If you want to do this research and
share what you come up with, by all means.
[snip]
> > Seriously, where did you get this particular poorly produced piece of
> > propaganda? It's rare to see such an amateurish hack job.
>
> Nathan I think you're rather frustrated and angry, and are trying way
> too hard here.
Not particularly. I find your argument incredibly bizarre, that's
all. I don't get angry at you lying anymore; I've come to expect
it... perhaps even to desire it.
> I used a couple incorrect words in my description.
> The implication still seems to stand.
You did more than use a couple of incorrect words in your description.
The entire argument is based on a lie. Again: where did you find
this piece of ridiculous propaganda? I'm seriously interested. If
this is indicative of the quality of their propaganda, and you are
indicative of the credulousness of their readers, then there's got to
be a few real gems at that site.
> > [snip - the reader is invited to evaluate Josh's accuracy and
> > intellectual integrity by comparing his description to Truman's
> > speech. I need add nothing more here]
>
> Why do you keep mentioning my accurate description of points expressed
> in Truman's speech, while not discussing them at all?
I replaced the long sections of your text concerning your
interpretation of Truman's words with the snip message above. It's
copied and pasted throughout.
> I too invite readers to actually read what I said in response to a
> question about what Truman said. Then, if anyone believes any of
> those points don't exist in the speech. I'd like to hear why.
And if anyone believes that Truman's speech supports the assertion
that "we can escape recurrent economic stagnation or internal
regimentation only with ever expanding markets" and is the "natural
counterpart" of a call for an indefinitely expanding American Empire,
I'd like to hear why.
- Nate
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>Gabrielle Rapagnetta <n0spam....@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<b0idkvoih0r228ijm...@4ax.com>...
>> Nathan Folkert wrote:
>[snip]
>> >[UNGA RES 38/25] did not propose "the right of every state to choose
>> >its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
>> >without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
>> >"*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis), which has been reiterated in
>> >numerous UNGA resolutions adopted with and without vote, in the midst
>> >of a series of positions and actions [...]
[snip]
>
>Resolutions "reaffirm" and "recall" various principles and past votes
>all the time. Doesn't mean that you're voting against them when you
>reject the resolution for some other reason (except propagandists will
>spin it that way, of course).
>
>The US probably voted against this resolution because it did not see
>the implementation of the New International Economic Order, or the
>Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States, or this
>particular project on the "national experience in achieving
>far-reaching social and economic changes for the purpose of social
>progress" as being in its interests. I am sure if you are interested,
>you can find out why.
>
>Several other major industrial powers abstained from the vote,
>including Japan, the UK, and Germany. I have not looked at these
>programs in detail, though I know that the Charter in particular
>contained some controversial points (though it also called for free
>trade between states). That would be my guess; if you are interested,
>please do some research and let us know what you find out.
To be honest I'm not sure how to go about that. The UN voting records
search seems to go back only as far as 1983 (where the General
Assembly is concerned).
I've pieced together the history of UN resolutions which led up to the
one you're talking about. Goes like this:
1581 A (1972)
1746 (1973)
3273 (1974)
A/RES/31/38 (1976)
A/RES/36/19 (1981)
A/RES/38/25 (1983)
I believe the first three are Economic and Social Council resolutions.
They all say pretty much the same thing.
Anyway, I'll try to figure out what specific programs the U.S. might
have been objecting in that resolution. I don't think there is a
decent law library within 100 miles of my house, though, so if anyone
has suggestions on how to find voting records for the General Assembly
before 1983 I would appreciate it.
I hope this doesn't derail your thread about Truman.
Paulsrb
> > > In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second... where
> > > was the right "affirmed" in the first place, and why did the US go
> > > against the rest of the world in voting against the resolution, in
> > > your estimation?
> >
> > The explanation is very simple: Reagan Administration officials
> > understood that UN resolutions mean what they say, and unlike you they
> > were reluctant to endorse, without a moment's thought, calls for the
> > sovereign protection of fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and
> > genocide.
>
> Recall that the title of this resolution is "National experience in
> achieving far-reaching social and economic changes for the purpose of
> social progress", not "the sovereign right of states to choose their
> own economic and social systems".
>
> The rejection of this resolution didn't have anything to do with this
> right, even if you believe it should have. The right is already
> reiterated in several other resolutions adopted with and without vote,
> and is enshrined in the United Nations Charter in the principle of
> sovereign equality (actually, in the UN Charter the principle is more
> general. There is no reference to the "will of the people", which
> would arguably exclude oppressive authoritarian dictatorship from
> having the authority to determine the social and economic system of
> the state).
You are right to point out that the principle of sovereign equality
originates in the UN Charter - which, as you also note, is even more
depraved than this resolution - and I would only draw attention to the
obvious meaning of this fact, namely that the founding purpose of the
UN includes the legal protection of states devoted to fascism,
communism, eugenics, slavery and genocide. Since the basic goal of the
UN is enforcement of the rights of states and not the rights of
individuals, the UN is simply the international equivalent of an
organised crime family, and its various conventions and resolutions
deserve no greater respect than edicts from the criminal underworld.
> Respect for sovereignty (or rhetoric to that effect) has been the norm for
> four hundred years, meant to help maintain peace between states.
With results which are apparent to all, starting with the Thirty Years
War and proceeding through World Wars I and II and the Cold War to its
culmination in today's nightmare scenario, wherein respect for the
sovereignty of terrorist dictatorships may well eventuate in the
nuclear destruction of a major Western city.
[Interesting further discussion snipped]
James A. Donald
On 23 Aug 2003 18:50:13 -0700, psrb...@yahoo.co.uk (Paulsrb)
wrote:
> You are right to point out that the principle of sovereign
> equality originates in the UN Charter - which, as you also
> note, is even more depraved than this resolution - and I
> would only draw attention to the obvious meaning of this
> fact, namely that the founding purpose of the UN includes the
> legal protection of states devoted to fascism, communism,
> eugenics, slavery and genocide. Since the basic goal of the
> UN is enforcement of the rights of states and not the rights
> of individuals, the UN is simply the international equivalent
> of an organised crime family, and its various conventions and
> resolutions deserve no greater respect than edicts from the
> criminal underworld.
To be strictly correct, the principle originates from the peace
of Westphalia, hence Nathan's reference to "400 years"
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
EWv/BjIfEJn+F2cORWqnPJZSDMytWYU+O9dZ2RHt
4X3EmiB5bOtMR5PkQKWNR/a50ETctnQIxSP0vplm9
Josh Dougherty
> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Therefore I have no interest in watching you twist logic and the
> > > English language in order to torture a meaning out of the text that is
> > > not intended.
> >
> > No, you have no interest in reading what I said about the speech
> > because each sentiment I outlined as coming from the speech is
> > contained in it. You can lie to yourself all you like.
>
> I chose not to respond to your post because anyone reading Truman who
> is not inflamed with passion to protect Chomsky's good name will find
> your explanation of Truman's words bizarre and dishonest.
You might choose to believe that, but I think it's hardly the case.
> I don't need to read it in detail; you start lying in your first sentence.
> Truman does not say that "freedom of enterprise" is the "primary
> freedom from which all others are dependant". This level of accuracy
> seems to be maintained throughout your post.
What you call "lying" is merely reading the sentiments of the speech
and describing them. The above sentiment is fundamental to his
position throughout, and he thusly makes sure to establish this:
“There is one thing that Americans value even more than peace.
It is
freedom. 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 measures of freedom to individual
enterprise. Freedom has flourished where power has been dispersed.
It has languished where power has been too highly centralized. So our
devotion to freedom of enterprise, in the United States, has deeper
roots than a desire to protect the profits of ownership. It is part
and parcel of what we call American.”
He then goes on to describe the virtues of and necessity for
maintaining and expanding “freedom of enterprise” around
the world, and IMO, the purpose of the passage above is precisely to
conflate “freedom of enterprise” with all others that
Americans value, asserting that if this one were to be reduced or
discarded, that the loss of the others would follow. In fact, this is
an argument you believe in and argue all the time in one form or
another. Truman issues a confirmation of one of your and your
compatriots most fundamental beliefs, and you're now not willing to
acknowledge his agreement with you.
> > > No, the usual complaint is that Truman is not arguing the Leninist
> > > theory of imperialism, while Chomsky is saying that Truman is arguing
> > > the Leninist theory of imperialism.
> >
> > Yes, that's one disingenous complaint, usually requiring evading
> > discussion of what he said, like you're doing here. But I was talking
> > of a slightly different complaint.
>
> Chomsky claimed that Truman's words supported the belief that "we can
> escape recurrent economic stagnation or internal regimentation only
> with every expanding markets".
Right. Truman's words actually supported the belief that "we can
escape internal regimentation only by expanding markets".
> > > The complaint above was invented by you,
> >
> > No, it certainly wasn't. It was made, and probably "invented", by
> > James Donald:
>
> James Donald does not argue that Truman would never admit the
> inferiority of capitalism. James Donald says that Truman did not
> admit the inferiority of capitalism.
Yes, but James was deceiving himself. James invented the whole line
of discussion about the issue being a "superiority / inferiority"
question of capitalism in the first place, because that's his
reactionary nature regarding his most cherished dialectic. And, under
this new framework that James invented, Truman does indeed say this
(though it hardly resembles an "admission").
Truman predicts and gravely fears that the American "freedom of
enterprise" system would succumb to pressures toward internal
regimentation (and therefore not survive as a free enterprise system)
if it had to compete with the command economic policies which, as
Truman says, were in a trend of expanding abroad. Truman is
predicting that the US free enterprise system would not be able to
maintain itself as such, unless it could reverse the trend toward
command economies, and thereby expand markets abroad.
So, Truman says that the "free enterprise" system wouldn't be able to
compete or maintain itself against "the pattern of trade...in which
decisions are made by governments".
There's a solution though: dismantling the latter systems abroad as
much as possible and expanding markets.
> [snip]
>
> > > Either you have not read UN Resolution 38/25, or you are lying. This
> > > resolution did not propose "the right of every state to choose its
> > > economic and social system in accord with the will of its people,
> > > without outside interference in whatever form it takes", but rather
> > > "*re*affirms" this right (my emphasis),
> >
> > Yes, I've read the resolution.
>
> Then you are lying. Thank you for clearing that up.
Oh brother.
> > The text may be read here:
> > http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r025.htm
> >
> > Yes, it "re-affirms" the right, and I used the word "declared" (though
> > not "proposed"). So, I should have said the former. Not a very big
> > deal I'd say, and hardly merits the condescension you're using to coat
> > your evasion.
>
> You imply above that the US voted against a resolution on "the right
> of every state to choose its economic and political system...".
No. Since you're the stickler for semantics, I said that the US voted
against a resolution that had declared this right, which is true. The
US has also done so previously, and AFAIK every time this specific
right has been directly enunciated in any GA resolution. It vetoed a
resolution declaring the same thing in 1981 too, for instance.
I also consider this provision -- one of six fundamental components
outlined (hardly some back-door "rider") -- to be the one that would
seem most irksome to the dominant US ideology regarding the UN and
other nations, and is most likely what triggered the lone nay vote by
the US.
Here's the resolution again:
www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r025.htm
Browse the pretexts and the six provisions, and see what jumps out as
being the content that would rub the US wrong.
I think Paul has already done this, and has confirmed that it is
almost certainly the provision I quoted which is the sticking point,
and has already constructed a rationalization for himself. You need
to catch up.
> We know that you meant to imply this, because this is how you use the
> resolution in your surrounding argument -- to show that the US is
> against the right of every state to choose its economic and political
> system.
Which it is. At least Paul was honest about this.
> The veto of the resolution does support that conclusion
Yes, the veto goes quite a way in supporting it, as do others.
> The US actually voted against a resolution on "national
> experience in achieving far-reaching social and economic changes...",
> which makes it very, very easy to spot your lie.
Does it? Why, then is it so hard to spot? One of the basic
components of that proposition is the right outlined that each state
be allowed to choose its own economic and political systems without
needing authorization from the US.
> When the Amber Alert bill was passed through congress recently,
> politicians attached a rider to the bill called the RAVE Act, which
> was a highly controversial bill giving broad power to the government
> to infringe upon the rights of businesses such as dance clubs, concert
> venues, etc. whose clientele might use their premises to take illegal
> drugs. Your argument above is equivalent in honesty and intellectual
> integrity as that of someone who accuses a senator voting against the
> Amber Alert Bill of supporting pedophilia,
What a completely absurd claim.
> when in fact the reason he
> is voting against it has nothing to do with Amber Alert (not that
> voting against Amber Alert alone would be supporting pedophilia,
> either), but rather to do with the draconian rider that Biden got
> attached to it.
This provision in the Resolution was not some unrelated "rider" that
was tacked on. It was a fundamental component of the resolution and
its aims, which is why it is invoked and "reaffirmed" as one of the
six basic provisions to support those aims. You're just using a straw
man and trying to paint this as some backdoor inclusion of an
unrelated provision, as if to claim that it has nothing to do with the
"veto".
Again, at least Paul was honest.
In fact, it's hard to even assertain what rambling denial you're
trying to make here. If the provision I mentioned is supposed to be
equivalent to the "draconian rider" in your analogy, then what I've
said bears no resemblance to what you call its "equivalent" in your
tortured analogy. I'm saying YES! The "senator" was voting against
the "rider".
So I think it would be hard to find an analogy that is more
innacurate. First, the provision doesn't resemble a "rider" in the
first place, it's a fundamental component of the resolution itself,
not some secondary unrelated add-on. And second, you got the
relationship to my "accusation" exactly and precisely backwards.
> > In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second....where
> > was the right "affirmed" in the first place,
>
> The UN Charter.
Ok. Then where exactly does the UN Charter specifically enunciate the
right of each state to choose its own economic system in accordance
with the will of its people, without outside intereference in whatever
form it takes?
And, why would the US vote against principles it has already voted for
when adopting the UN Charter? Or, are you claiming that the "right" I
outlined has nothing to do with the US vote? If so, what other
provision of the resolution do you think it is that made the US vote
against the rest of the world?
>
> > and why did the US go against the rest of the world in voting against
> > the resolution, in your estimation?
>
> I have no idea --
Indeed.
> > I too invite readers to actually read what I said in response to a
> > question about what Truman said. Then, if anyone believes any of
> > those points don't exist in the speech. I'd like to hear why.
>
> And if anyone believes that Truman's speech supports the assertion
> that "we can escape recurrent economic stagnation or internal
> regimentation only with ever expanding markets" and is the "natural
> counterpart" of a call for an indefinitely expanding American Empire,
> I'd like to hear why.
Truman's speech clearly supports the assertion that "we can escape
internal regimentation only by expanding markets", which is just
slightly different than the phrase above. That is the precise point
outlined in this passage:
"If this trend is not reversed, the Government of the United States
will be under pressure, sooner or later, to use these same devices to
fight for markets and for raw materials. And if the Government were
to yield to this pressure, it would shortly find itself in the
business of allocating foreign goods among importers and foreign
markets among exporters and telling every trader what he could buy or
sell, and how much, and when, and where (ie: internal regimentation)."
...and the solution he outlines to avoid this is expanding markets.
You can't even seem to admit this obvious truth about the speech,
which is pretty instructive.
Josh
Nathan Folkert
> nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > You imply above that the US voted against a resolution on "the right
> > of every state to choose its economic and political system...".
>
> No. Since you're the stickler for semantics, I said that the US voted
> against a resolution that had declared this right, which is true. The
> US has also done so previously, and AFAIK every time this specific
> right has been directly enunciated in any GA resolution. It vetoed a
> resolution declaring the same thing in 1981 too, for instance.
Please, Josh, *stop lying about this resolution*. It's getting
boring, and no one is fooled.
[snip]
- Nate
Paulsrb
> nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> Here's the resolution again:
> www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r025.htm
>
> Browse the pretexts and the six provisions, and see what jumps out as
> being the content that would rub the US wrong.
>
> I think Paul has already done this, and has confirmed that it is
> almost certainly the provision I quoted which is the sticking point,
> and has already constructed a rationalization for himself.
I notice that while you characterise my interpretation of the plain
meaning of its words as a rationalisation, you are happy to evade the
relevant question: do you agree that states are entitled to adopt
absolutely any social and economic system they think fit, including
fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and genocide?
[snip]
> > We know that you meant to imply this, because this is how you use the
> > resolution in your surrounding argument - to show that the US is
> > against the right of every state to choose its economic and political
> > system.
>
> Which it is. At least Paul was honest about this.
I do not agree that states - or even popular majorities within states
- are entitled to adopt fascism, communism, slavery, eugenics or
genocide, and I very much hope that my position is shared by the USA
(although I have no knowledge of the motivation for its vote). It
would be helpful if you could indicate whether your commentary on this
subject is mere sound and fury on your part or whether you really do
believe that states are entitled to adopt fascism, communism, slavery,
eugenics or genocide.
Josh Dougherty
> > nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [snip]
> > Here's the resolution again:
> > www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r025.htm
> >
> > Browse the pretexts and the six provisions, and see what jumps out as
> > being the content that would rub the US wrong.
> >
> > I think Paul has already done this, and has confirmed that it is
> > almost certainly the provision I quoted which is the sticking point,
> > and has already constructed a rationalization for himself.
>
> I notice that while you characterise my interpretation of the plain
> meaning of its words as a rationalisation,
I don't believe most people would see quite the same "plain meaning"
that you do. But you're entitled to whatever meaning you believe.
> you are happy to evade the
> relevant question: do you agree that states are entitled to adopt
> absolutely any social and economic system they think fit, including
> fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and genocide?
How did this become the "relevant question"??? It's a completely new
topic.
> [snip]
> > > We know that you meant to imply this, because this is how you use the
> > > resolution in your surrounding argument - to show that the US is
> > > against the right of every state to choose its economic and political
> > > system.
> >
> > Which it is. At least Paul was honest about this.
>
> I do not agree that states - or even popular majorities within states
> - are entitled to adopt fascism, communism, slavery, eugenics or
> genocide, and I very much hope that my position is shared by the USA
> (although I have no knowledge of the motivation for its vote).
Now you have no knowledge? So why, in your previous post, when
responding to the question "why did the US go against the rest of the
world in voting against the resolution, in your estimation?", did you
confidently reply:
"The explanation is very simple: Reagan Administration officials
understood that UN resolutions mean what they say, and unlike you they
were reluctant to endorse, without a moment's thought, calls for the
sovereign protection of fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and
genocide."
You seemed to be very confident in your knowledge of the motivation
for the vote, and spelled it out without hesitation. It's not my
fault that you're changing your story (and the subject) now.
Josh
Paulsrb
> > I notice that while you characterise my interpretation of the plain
> > meaning of its words as a rationalisation,
>
> I don't believe most people would see quite the same "plain meaning"
> that you do. But you're entitled to whatever meaning you believe.
If you can find an error in my construction of plain meaning of the
text, I challenge you to identify it. So far you have not done so.
> > you are happy to evade the relevant question: do you agree that states are
> > entitled to adopt absolutely any social and economic system they think fit,
> > including fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and genocide?
>
> How did this become the "relevant question"??? It's a completely new
> topic.
It is relevant to your discussion of this resolution. You depicted
American opposition as wholly unreasonable. It then becomes a
pertinent question whether you are dishonestly criticising a negative
vote which you would have emulated, given the chance, or whether you
actually agree with the principle at issue.
[snip]
> > I do not agree that states - or even popular majorities within states
> > - are entitled to adopt fascism, communism, slavery, eugenics or
> > genocide, and I very much hope that my position is shared by the USA
> > (although I have no knowledge of the motivation for its vote).
>
> Now you have no knowledge? So why, in your previous post, when
> responding to the question "why did the US go against the rest of the
> world in voting against the resolution, in your estimation?", did you
> confidently reply:
>
> "The explanation is very simple: Reagan Administration officials
> understood that UN resolutions mean what they say, and unlike you they
> were reluctant to endorse, without a moment's thought, calls for the
> sovereign protection of fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and
> genocide."
>
> You seemed to be very confident in your knowledge of the motivation
> for the vote, and spelled it out without hesitation. It's not my
> fault that you're changing your story (and the subject) now.
I am less confident having read Nate's reply to the post which you are
quoting, since he identified other features of the resolution to which
the Reagan Administration might have objected.
I notice that you continue to evade the question I put to you: are you
cynically criticising the Reagan Administration for taking a position
which you actually share, or do you agree that states are entitled to
Josh Dougherty
> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > You imply above that the US voted against a resolution on "the right
> > > of every state to choose its economic and political system...".
> >
> > No. Since you're the stickler for semantics, I said that the US voted
> > against a resolution that had declared this right, which is true. The
> > US has also done so previously, and AFAIK every time this specific
> > right has been directly enunciated in any GA resolution. It vetoed a
> > resolution declaring the same thing in 1981 too, for instance.
>
> Please, Josh, *stop lying about this resolution*.
Ok, but only after you stop beating your wife.
Josh
Nathan Folkert
> Please, Josh, *stop lying about this resolution*. It's getting
> boring, and no one is fooled.
Josh is apparently unsatisfied with this response. Fine, but my
patience for wasting my time responding to obvious lies and nonsense
is growing rather thin.
My response to Josh's claims about this resolution:
jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > You imply above that the US voted against a resolution on "the right
> > of every state to choose its economic and political system...".
>
> No. Since you're the stickler for semantics, I said that the US voted
> against a resolution that had declared this right, which is true.
Yes, and then you went on to imply that not only did the resolution
contain a reference to the "right of every state to choose its
economic and political system", but that the US was actually "vetoing"
this right. Turning back to your first post on this topic, it is
obvious that you take this as assumed, because otherwise your argument
doesn't make any sense and the introduction of this resolution is
completely irrelevant.
But as anyone can see by reading the resolution, entitled "national
experience in achieving far-reaching social and economic changes for
the purpose of social progress", that the resolution *only references*
this right, *it does not establish it*. It does not need to -- the
principle of sovereign equality is *the founding principle* of the
United Nations, enshrined in the Charter.
So by voting against (not vetoing) this resolution, the US is not
necessarily voting against this right. Your implication is thus
unfounded. In fact, we know that it is not voting against this right,
because it has accepted this right elsewhere. Your implication is
thus a lie.
> The US has also done so previously, and AFAIK every time this
> specific right has been directly enunciated in any GA resolution.
But you already know, as I have just told you, that this is not the
case. The US has accepted this right in numerous resolutions and in
the Charter of the United Nations. That it has voted against some
resolutions that happen to reiterate the right is irrelevant.
[snip]
> > The veto of the resolution does support that conclusion
>
> Yes, the veto goes quite a way in supporting it, as do others.
This fragment Josh quotes above does not appear in my post. Or in any
post, for that matter, except his own. I hope you have a reasonable
explanation for why you are typing my words for me in your posts,
Josh?
[snip]
> > > In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second....where
> > > was the right "affirmed" in the first place,
> >
> > The UN Charter.
>
> Ok. Then where exactly does the UN Charter specifically enunciate the
> right of each state to choose its own economic system in accordance
> with the will of its people, without outside intereference in whatever
> form it takes?
The UN's founding principle is the sovereign equality of its members.
This is the first principle enunciated in Article 2 of the United
Nations Charter, immediately after the explanation of the Purpose of
the organization itself. Sovereign equality means that each state is
treated as an equal among states, and that each state has complete
authority over its internal affairs without interference by other
states.
This is the principle on which most international law rests, which is
why it is reiterated, reaffirmed, and recalled in many resolutions.
If you want a more complete explanation, see the "Declaration on
Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and
Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations", adopted without a vote in 1970, which states:
"Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political,
economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any
form by another State."
Or, in a more complete explanation of the principle of sovereign
equality:
"The principle of sovereign equality of States
All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights and duties
and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding
differences of an economic, social, political or other nature.
In particular, sovereign equality includes the following elements:
(a) States are judicially equal;
(b) Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
(c) Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other
States;
(d) The territorial integrity and political independence of the State
are inviolable;
(e) Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its
political, social, economic and cultural systems;
(f) Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its
international obligations and to live in peace with other States."
> And, why would the US vote against principles it has already
> voted for when adopting the UN Charter?
It did not.
> Or, are you claiming that the "right" I outlined has nothing to do
> with the US vote?
Should be obvious, since the US did not oppose this right elsewhere,
including in the Charter of the United Nations.
> If so, what other provision of the resolution do you think it is that
> made the US vote against the rest of the world?
My guess, as I said before, is that it would involve the
implementation of the various UN economic development schemes such as
the New International Economic Order, the Charter of the Economic
Rights and Duties of States, and this particular program involving the
reporting of "national experience in achieving far-reaching social and
economic changes for the purpose of social progress" that were
mentioned in the resolution.
Like I said, though, you can do your own research if you're interested
in the question.
[snip]
- Nate
Josh Dougherty
>
> > > I notice that while you characterise my interpretation of the plain
> > > meaning of its words as a rationalisation,
> >
> > I don't believe most people would see quite the same "plain meaning"
> > that you do. But you're entitled to whatever meaning you believe.
>
> If you can find an error in my construction of plain meaning of the
> text, I challenge you to identify it. So far you have not done so.
No I haven't. I wasn't interested in taking your bait and changing
the subject, or even discussing this issue with you. So, I chose to
limit the response to those points I was discussing previously.
I'm still not sure how productive it's going to be to embark on this
digression with you, but I can start with one glaring error.
"Genocide" is not an "economic or social system".
I can continue and say that, really, neither is "eugenics". "Slavery"
is a kind of economic system, but I think there are already UN
provisions explicitly against it, and I don't see why the provision I
mentioned, which doesn't even refer at all to "slavery", would
override the others.
Same with "genocide", but, as I've already said, that's not even an
"economic or social system" in any reasonable sense. You just
included it in the list for some cheap polemical reason, is all I can
guess.
All that's really left is "fascism" & "communism", which can be
classified as either/or "economic or social systems", but also carry
tons of other baggage in their myriad political usages, and can or can
not imply a bunch of other things besides "economic or social
systems".
I don't see why an outside state would be "entitled" to interfere with
a sovereign nation if the people of that country developed an economic
system that could be classified as "fascist", for instance. There
would seem to need to be some other compelling argument for such a
right, besides simply the existence of an economic or social system in
some country that could be labelled "fascist".
And, the next question that arises would be that, if each country
doesn't have such a right, then someone else has a right to interfere.
It is then the "outside interferer" who has the right to choose the
economic or social system for the inhabitants of the other country.
Who exactly is endowed with that entitlement?
> > > you are happy to evade the relevant question: do you agree that states are
> > > entitled to adopt absolutely any social and economic system they think fit,
> > > including fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and genocide?
> >
> > How did this become the "relevant question"??? It's a completely new
> > topic.
>
> It is relevant to your discussion of this resolution. You depicted
> American opposition as wholly unreasonable.
No I didn't. I mentioned it in relation to some basic principles
which, if accepted, would seem to make it quite reasonable to take a
stance in opposition, not really unreasonable at all. That was my
point.
If you mean that my words seemed to imply that I don't agree with the
American opposition myself, that's correct. I tend to agree with the
vast majority of the world on the issue. That doesn't mean I don't
think there is no consistent reasoning behind the opposition.
> It then becomes a pertinent question whether you are dishonestly criticising
> a negative vote which you would have emulated, given the chance, or whether
> you actually agree with the principle at issue.
Yes, I generally agree with the principle that each state should be
able to decide its own economic or social systems in accord with the
will of their people, without outside interference.
I think that's a very good principle to enunciate and strive for.
However, I don't think it would always provide a simple or finite
answer for every possible scenario. Nor do I think that there would
never be any scenario where some other immediately pressing concen
might legitimately override this principle. But any such scenario
should have to meet an extremely heavy burden of proof. And also, as
most other basic principles enunciated in UN resolutions, it would
almost certainly not be followed always, but it's still good to
enunciate it and strive for it.
Furthermore, I don't necessarily subscribe to any poorly formulated
false dilemma that's spouted by a detractor about such things. For
instance, I may agree with, and think others should support, the
principle that:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a
family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
marriage and at its dissolution."
But, for instance, if some state imposed some kind of
ethnic/national/religious limitation on marriage, for the purpose of
enhancing the ethnic cleansing of a certain group from its country, I
wouldn't necessarily think that this policy would grant a right to
some other state to go in and violently overthrow the government.
Likewise, I may agree with the principle that:
"Everyone has the right to work", and "Everyone who works has the
right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his
family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if
necessary, by other means of social protection."
But, for instance, if some state chose to maintain some degree of
unemployment at all times, ensuring that at least some people would be
denied the right to work at all times, I don't necessarily think that
other states then gain a right to invade that state.
Or, if some state decided that people have no right to "just and
favourable remuneration" that could ensure "an existence of human
dignity", but rather decided to follow some other ideological economic
theory that deemed that some people should work for starvation wages
and have living standards below human dignity, I don't necessarily
believe that this would entitle other states to interfere with that
country's internal economic or social decisions.
Or, if some state rejected the notion of "social protection" itself as
some kind of creeping communism, and declared that their citizens will
have no such right, but will either eat or starve on their own
"merits", I don't necessarily believe that other states gain an
entitlement to interfere.
...etc. etc.
> [snip]
> > > I do not agree that states - or even popular majorities within states
> > > - are entitled to adopt fascism, communism, slavery, eugenics or
> > > genocide, and I very much hope that my position is shared by the USA
> > > (although I have no knowledge of the motivation for its vote).
> >
> > Now you have no knowledge? So why, in your previous post, when
> > responding to the question "why did the US go against the rest of the
> > world in voting against the resolution, in your estimation?", did you
> > confidently reply:
> >
> > "The explanation is very simple: Reagan Administration officials
> > understood that UN resolutions mean what they say, and unlike you they
> > were reluctant to endorse, without a moment's thought, calls for the
> > sovereign protection of fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and
> > genocide."
> >
> > You seemed to be very confident in your knowledge of the motivation
> > for the vote, and spelled it out without hesitation. It's not my
> > fault that you're changing your story (and the subject) now.
>
> I am less confident having read Nate's reply to the post which you are
> quoting, since he identified other features of the resolution to which
> the Reagan Administration might have objected.
Like what? All he said was that there could be some other reason,
that maybe there was something about the resolution that wasn't in the
US' "interests", but failed to provide any indication as to what this
might be.
You're obviously swayed extremely easily. Next time you assert
something confidently as an evident truth, I'll be sure to take it
with a silo of salt.
Josh
Dan Clore
> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > I notice that while you characterise my interpretation of the plain
> > > meaning of its words as a rationalisation,
> >
> > I don't believe most people would see quite the same "plain meaning"
> > that you do. But you're entitled to whatever meaning you believe.
>
> If you can find an error in my construction of plain meaning of the
> text, I challenge you to identify it. So far you have not done so.
We'll see about that.
[snip for space]
> I notice that you continue to evade the question I put to you: are you
> cynically criticising the Reagan Administration for taking a position
> which you actually share, or do you agree that states are entitled to
> adopt absolutely any social and economic system they think fit,
> including fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and genocide?
The actual text reads: "Reaffirms the sovereign and
inalienable right of every State to choose its economic and
social system *in accordance with the will of its people*,
without outside interference in whatever form it takes" (my
emphasis). Since the people would be the victims of such
"social and economic" systems (to stretch definitions just
the tiniest bit) as "eugenics, slavery and genocide" etc.,
they would not likely be chosen in accordance with their
will. Furthermore, the resolution specifies the purpose for
which it reaffirms this principle: "to promote a higher
standard of life, full employment and conditions for
economic and social progress and development"; "to carry out
fundamental social and economic changes for the purpose of
social progress"; to remove "all obstacles to the economic
and social progress of peoples, especially colonialism,
neo-colonialism, racism, racial discrimination, apartheid,
military, political and economic intervention and pressures,
foreign aggression and occupation or alien domination, as
well as all forms of inequality and exploitation of
peoples"; and so forth. Now, perhaps Paulsrb has an odd view
of what would constitute "social and economic progress and
development"; perhaps Paulsrb believes that such things as
colonialism, racism, racial discriminations, apartheid,
etc., actually further "social and economic progress and
development"; etc. Or perhaps something else explains his
comments.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Paulsrb
[snip]
> > I notice that you continue to evade the question I put to you: are you
> > cynically criticising the Reagan Administration for taking a position
> > which you actually share, or do you agree that states are entitled to
> > adopt absolutely any social and economic system they think fit,
> > including fascism, communism, eugenics, slavery and genocide?
>
> The actual text reads: "Reaffirms the sovereign and
> inalienable right of every State to choose its economic and
> social system *in accordance with the will of its people*,
> without outside interference in whatever form it takes" (my
> emphasis). Since the people would be the victims of such
> "social and economic" systems (to stretch definitions just
> the tiniest bit) as "eugenics, slavery and genocide" etc.,
> they would not likely be chosen in accordance with their
> will.
This extraordinary claim calls for two observations:-
(1) I denied that states are entitled to adopt fascism, communism,
etc., under any circumstances, and your response - that such a choice
is permissible, so long as it is in accordance with the will of the
people - beggars belief. I can only ask that you take the time to read
some of the basic literature in the philosophical history of
individual freedom - e.g. Locke's Second Treatise or Mill's On Liberty
- so that you will understand the reasons for affording individuals
constitutional protection from the power of the masses. As for the
suggestion that oppressive systems would not be adopted by popular
vote because they disadvantage "the people," are you being facetious
or do you really believe that measures harmful to minorities are never
chosen by the majority?
(2) You reveal your abysmal ignorance of history in claiming that none
of these social and economic systems could ever be adopted in
accordance with the will of the people. If you take the trouble to
consult any worthwhile study of the subject, you will discover that
many democratic countries, including your own, had passed eugenics
laws in the earlier part of the 20th century, and that scores of
thousands of innocent people had been forcibly sterilised as a direct
result. Furthermore, you will discover that it was democratic Weimar
Germany which initiated eugenic policies towards the mentally and
physically disabled, whose culmination we shudder to recall. And all
of this would receive the protection of international law under the
principles which you now endorse.
> Furthermore, the resolution specifies the purpose for
> which it reaffirms this principle: "to promote a higher
> standard of life, full employment and conditions for
> economic and social progress and development"; "to carry out
> fundamental social and economic changes for the purpose of
> social progress";
Fascists, communists, eugenicists, and even the advocates of slavery
and genocide, have all justified their atrocities in the name of
promoting higher living standards, social progress, etc., as you are
surely aware.
> to remove "all obstacles to the economic
> and social progress of peoples, especially colonialism,
> neo-colonialism, racism, racial discrimination, apartheid,
> military, political and economic intervention and pressures,
> foreign aggression and occupation or alien domination, as
> well as all forms of inequality and exploitation of
> peoples"; and so forth. Now, perhaps Paulsrb has an odd view
> of what would constitute "social and economic progress and
> development"; perhaps Paulsrb believes that such things as
> colonialism, racism, racial discriminations, apartheid,
> etc., actually further "social and economic progress and
> development"; etc. Or perhaps something else explains his
> comments.
I won't comment on your attempt to deduce support for apartheid,
colonialism, etc., from my declared opposition to fascism, communism,
eugenics, slavery and genocide, except to say that such an
intellectual exercise is eminently worthy of one who believes that
each and every one of these barbaric social and economic systems may
legitimately be adopted by majority vote. Aren't you ashamed of
yourself? What happened to your self-proclaimed anarchism?
Paulsrb
[snip]
> > If you can find an error in my construction of plain meaning of the
> > text, I challenge you to identify it. So far you have not done so.
>
> No I haven't. I wasn't interested in taking your bait and changing
> the subject, or even discussing this issue with you. So, I chose to
> limit the response to those points I was discussing previously.
I'm glad that you changed your mind, but having found your comments in
the land reform thread interesting and worthwhile, I'm more than a
little disappointed with the content and quality of your latest
response.
> I'm still not sure how productive it's going to be to embark on this
> digression with you, but I can start with one glaring error. "Genocide" is
> not an "economic or social system".
>
> I can continue and say that, really, neither is "eugenics". "Slavery"
> is a kind of economic system, but I think there are already UN
> provisions explicitly against it, and I don't see why the provision I
> mentioned, which doesn't even refer at all to "slavery", would
> override the others.
>
> Same with "genocide", but, as I've already said, that's not even an
> "economic or social system" in any reasonable sense. You just
> included it in the list for some cheap polemical reason, is all I can
> guess.
Socio-economic systems have indeed been founded on the bases of
eugenics, slavery and genocide, as you are perfectly aware, and I take
it that your objection to my inclusion of the generic terms in this
category in order to avoid the cumbersome necessity of naming each and
every specific example is merely a time-wasting exercise on your part.
> All that's really left is "fascism" & "communism", which can be
> classified as either/or "economic or social systems", but also carry
> tons of other baggage in their myriad political usages, and can or can
> not imply a bunch of other things besides "economic or social
> systems".
>
> I don't see why an outside state would be "entitled" to interfere with
> a sovereign nation if the people of that country developed an economic
> system that could be classified as "fascist", for instance. There
> would seem to need to be some other compelling argument for such a
> right, besides simply the existence of an economic or social system in
> some country that could be labelled "fascist".
Are you being serious? You see no justification for outside
interference of any kind - even boycotts, sanctions, etc. - when a
state adopts the characteristic features of fascism, e.g. police
terror, concentration camps, racial persecution, ethnic cleansing,
aggressive militarism, etc?
> And, the next question that arises would be that, if each country
> doesn't have such a right, then someone else has a right to interfere.
> It is then the "outside interferer" who has the right to choose the
> economic or social system for the inhabitants of the other country.
> Who exactly is endowed with that entitlement?
Transparent non-sequitur. From the denial that states have the right
to choose any socio-economic system they think fit - regardless of its
tyrannical and murderous nature - in accordance with the majority will
without any form of outside interference, it does not follow that
other states or the UN are entitled to impose their own chosen system
regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants. The international
community might instead maintain that the inhabitants have the right
to choose from a range of socio-economic systems within the
constraints of fundamental human rights; hence the terms
"constitutional government" and "liberal democracy," both of which
seem to be alien to your political philosophy.
[snip]
> > > How did this become the "relevant question"??? It's a completely new
> > > topic.
> >
> > It is relevant to your discussion of this resolution. You depicted
> > American opposition as wholly unreasonable.
>
> No I didn't. I mentioned it in relation to some basic principles
> which, if accepted, would seem to make it quite reasonable to take a
> stance in opposition, not really unreasonable at all. That was my
> point.
You were attributing to the target of your criticism a set of basic
principles which you rejected, unless, that is, your criticism was
meant to be wholly cynical. Since you reject the basic principles,
according to which opposition to the resolution was not unreasonable,
it follows that you must take the view that opposition to the
resolution was indeed unreasonable. No-one is fooled by your
rhetorical trickery :-)
[snip]
> > It then becomes a pertinent question whether you are dishonestly
> > criticising a negative vote which you would have emulated, given the
> > chance, or whether you actually agree with the principle at issue.
>
> Yes, I generally agree with the principle that each state should be
> able to decide its own economic or social systems in accord with the
> will of their people, without outside interference.
*Sigh*
At last you have given a straight answer to the question I posed, but
you have chosen the option which I had hoped that you would reject.
You are now endorsing the principle that each state is entitled to
choose fascism, communism, apartheid, theocratic fundamentalism, etc.,
and thus to instigate police terror, concentration camps, slave
labour, forced sterilisations, mass rape, female genital mutilation,
cannibalism, infanticide, human sacrifice and ethnic genocide, just so
long as these atrocities have majority support, and that no other
state or international body should have any chance to interfere in any
means whatsoever, including boycotts, sanctions, or support for the
opposition. That is the literal content of your position as you have
just stated it. If you want to retract, please go ahead, I won't hold
it against you.
> I think that's a very good principle to enunciate and strive for.
> However, I don't think it would always provide a simple or finite
> answer for every possible scenario. Nor do I think that there would
> never be any scenario where some other immediately pressing concen
> might legitimately override this principle. But any such scenario
> should have to meet an extremely heavy burden of proof. And also, as
> most other basic principles enunciated in UN resolutions, it would
> almost certainly not be followed always, but it's still good to
> enunciate it and strive for it.
But the principle which you claim to be endorsing refers to the right
to choose systems "without outside interference in whatever form it
takes." Now you tell us that the principle is not absolute, but merely
presumptive. Either states have the right to choose fascism, etc.,
without outside interference in *whatever* form it takes, or they do
not. Please make up your mind.
> Furthermore, I don't necessarily subscribe to any poorly formulated
> false dilemma that's spouted by a detractor about such things. For
> instance, I may agree with, and think others should support, the
> principle that:
>
> "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
> nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a
> family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
> marriage and at its dissolution."
>
> But, for instance, if some state imposed some kind of
> ethnic/national/religious limitation on marriage, for the purpose of
> enhancing the ethnic cleansing of a certain group from its country, I
> wouldn't necessarily think that this policy would grant a right to
> some other state to go in and violently overthrow the government.
Nor has anyone in this discussion suggested that humanitarian
interference can only take the form of violent intervention. Your
response to the dilemma which I posed is simply an evasion founded on
a distortion.
[snip]
> > > You seemed to be very confident in your knowledge of the motivation
> > > for the vote, and spelled it out without hesitation. It's not my
> > > fault that you're changing your story (and the subject) now.
> >
> > I am less confident having read Nate's reply to the post which you are
> > quoting, since he identified other features of the resolution to which
> > the Reagan Administration might have objected.
>
> Like what? All he said was that there could be some other reason,
> that maybe there was something about the resolution that wasn't in the
> US' "interests", but failed to provide any indication as to what this
> might be.
>
> You're obviously swayed extremely easily. Next time you assert
> something confidently as an evident truth, I'll be sure to take it
> with a silo of salt.
My original response to your defence of Chomsky's falsification of the
Truman quotes concerned your apparent objection to the negative vote
on the basis of the principle specified. Accordingly, I chose to focus
on the principle, and assumed that this was the feature of the
resolution which the Reagan Administration opposed. Following Nate's
reply, I took another look at the text and wondered whether the Reagan
Administration was dissenting from some of the procedural aspects
related to the subject-matter which he had identified, for instance
the reference to the "report of the Secretary-General on national
experience in achieving far-reaching social and economic changes for
the purpose of social progress" or the call for "an interregional
seminar... within the resources already requested for sectoral and
regional advisory services in the proposed programme budget for the
biennium 1984-1985." I don't think that the procedural explanation is
particularly plausible, but I cannot say for certain that it is false;
hence my reservation.
On the broader point raised by your criticism, like any rational
person I am prepared to change my mind on any subject if superior
counterarguments are presented; but your latest contribution hardly
falls into that category.
Josh Dougherty
> nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
[snip]
>
> > > You imply above that the US voted against a resolution on "the right
> > > of every state to choose its economic and political system...".
> >
> > No. Since you're the stickler for semantics, I said that the US voted
> > against a resolution that had declared this right, which is true.
>
> Yes, and then you went on to imply that not only did the resolution
> contain a reference to the "right of every state to choose its
> economic and political system", but that the US was actually "vetoing"
> this right. Turning back to your first post on this topic, it is
> obvious that you take this as assumed, because otherwise your argument
> doesn't make any sense and the introduction of this resolution is
> completely irrelevant.
>
> But as anyone can see by reading the resolution, entitled "national
> experience in achieving far-reaching social and economic changes for
> the purpose of social progress", that the resolution *only references*
> this right, *it does not establish it*.
What it does is establish this right as one that will be more clearly
enunciated, and that will be on the UN agenda and applied in 1983 (and
1981), as the member states determine through negotiation. If the
right has already been “established” in a declaration in
1970 or implied in the principles of the Charter, it certainly does
not mean that a state – or a specific administration of a state
– would want this particular right on the agenda or in the
public discourse at a particular time decades later. It doesn’t
even mean that the current administration of the state actually
supports the principle, at least not without severe reservations.
> It does not need to -- the
> principle of sovereign equality is *the founding principle* of the
> United Nations, enshrined in the Charter.
The UN Charter contains general principles. Subsequent resolutions or
declarations work to implement those principles, and clarify their
meanings and application at various times, in direct relation to
current pressing topics.
The main point is, that a country could appear to be historically for
a principle in general, but be against particular applications. And,
it could be seen as advantageous to block a particular instance of the
invocation of the general principle of "sovereign equality" as related
specifically to a right on non-interference in economic matters. The
party may not want that particular application of the principle to be
on the agenda and in the public discourse at a particular time, or in
fact, may have a very different position on such a principle than
other past administrations.
> So by voting against (not vetoing) this resolution, the US is not
> necessarily voting against this right.
No, not "necessarily". It also is not “necessarily” *not*
doing so either.
You believe it's not, or want to argue it’s not, but haven't
really provided any particular thing they in fact were voting against,
or why. All you seem to be sure of is that it couldn’t
possibly be what I believe it is, but your arguments as to why this
must be so are extremely unconvincing.
> Your implication is thus unfounded.
Not at all. It might be the case that the US could have been (or
could have also been) voting against some other aspect of the
resolution, but I don't yet see what that is. The provision I
outlined seems a very likely culprit.
> In fact, we know that it is not voting against this right,
> because it has accepted this right elsewhere. Your implication is
> thus a lie.
That is quite absurd. The US has also voted for the Declaration of
Human Rights "elsewhere", yet the US ambassador to the UN Jeanne
Kirkpatrick, during this very period in question, issued a public
revearsal of the position apparently previously accepted, declaring
that the rights outlined in Articles 23-27 of the UDHR are basically
invalid, and not in fact rights at all, patently not accepting what
the US had apparently “accepted elsewhere”.
This is just one example of many. In fact, it seems the prevailing
US ideology during the 80’s, and since, tends not to be too
inclined to support these type of things in the UN, and is often quite
openly hostile to notions of "sovereignty" accept as applied to
itself. The Reagan administration was, after all, very much
revisionist regarding the UN and seemed very much interested in
revising the US position toward many of the “founding
principles”. We could probably list many examples which expose
the actual “lie” in your passage above.
“Sovereign Equality” is a malleable generality, just as
what constitutes defense against “armed attack” can be a
malleable generality, or what constitutes UN authorization for an
invasion of a sovereign state can be quite malleable. Retaining the
malleability can often be aided by turning more direct subsequent
enunciations of these principles into dead letters languishing in the
Charter without being on the agenda in reference to current debates,
or directly enunciated and clarified in that context.
And it hardly seems implausible to me that the Reagan administration
would have viewed this particular right as one of those ill-conceived
Utopian ideas of the leftist UN, just like Articles 23-27 of the UDHR,
in this instance, being invoked by the backwards states who are
irrationally anti-American, and just don’t understand that we
must reserve the right of interference for the US, in order to thwart
the dangers posed by international Communism.
In fact, I suspect Paul's initial explanation probably more closely
reflects the values and ideology of Reagan, Kirkpatrick..etc.,
regarding such "rights" than does the 1970 Declaration you cited, or
even the UN Charter. Perhaps you should be arguing with him over the
validity of these principles, and not me over the reasons for this
particular vote.
> [snip]
>
> > > The veto of the resolution does support that conclusion
> >
> > Yes, the veto goes quite a way in supporting it, as do others.
>
> This fragment Josh quotes above does not appear in my post. Or in any
> post, for that matter, except his own. I hope you have a reasonable
> explanation for why you are typing my words for me in your posts,
> Josh?
I don't remember exactly how that occurred, but it's obviously an
error I must have made while I was composing the response. I clearly
must have written both lines above. I guess I wrote the first line as
a response to you, but then somewhere along the line while revising my
response I must have gone back and read the line I had written as "the
veto...does not support..." and then mistook it for something
you’d written. It was certainly unintentional, and I apologize.
> [snip]
>
> > > > In any case, if you could stop spitting at me for a second....where
> > > > was the right "affirmed" in the first place,
> > >
> > > The UN Charter.
> >
> > Ok. Then where exactly does the UN Charter specifically enunciate the
> > right of each state to choose its own economic system in accordance
> > with the will of its people, without outside intereference in whatever
> > form it takes?
>
> The UN's founding principle is the sovereign equality of its members.
> This is the first principle enunciated in Article 2 of the United
> Nations Charter, immediately after the explanation of the Purpose of
> the organization itself. Sovereign equality means that each state is
> treated as an equal among states, and that each state has complete
> authority over its internal affairs without interference by other
> states.
Yes, but this refers to what I said above. “Sovereign
Equality” can be malleable, and what might seem to be just
another reiteration of a specific application of “sovereign
equality” could very well be a principle that some member state
might happen not to want directly enunciated, or on the agenda at a
particular time. It could also be that some member state happened to
reverse previous positions and currently viewed such an idea as
irrational or impractical, which hardly seems at all implausible for
the Reagan position toward the UN during this period.
And surely you don’t mean to imply that the US, or other states
for that matter, might not vote against what would seem very much like
“founding principles” of the UN Charter (or the UDHR) in
any given period or scenario.
There was also US support for a similar GA Resolution in 1965,
apparently with some stated reservations similar to Kirkpatrick's
regarding the UDHR, but this hardly means the US would not vote
against an enunciation of principle (e) forty years later, with a
different administration and different issues and goals in mind.
> > And, why would the US vote against principles it has already
> > voted for when adopting the UN Charter?
>
> It did not.
Nathan, you do not know what the US was voting against. You declare
that you do not know, only claiming to have a “guess”. As
such, it's plainly evident that you do not know that what you just
said above is true.
Your explanation for why my "guess" can not be true is not very
plausible, and indeed much of your argument seems quite naīve.
Josh
Nathan Folkert
"Also reaffirming the inalienable right of all peoples to decide on
their own form of government and to choose their own economic,
political and social system free from all foreign intervention,
coercion or limitation,"
A/RES/38/10 (1983) adopted by consensus
"Urges all States to respect and strictly observe, in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations, the sovereignty and political
independence of States and the right of peoples to self-determination,
as well as their right freely, without outside interference and
intervention, to choose their socio-political system and to pursue
their political, economic, social and cultural development."
A/RES/39/159 (1984) US abstained, did not vote against
"1. Reaffirms that co-operation among all nations should be based on
respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
each State, including the right of each people to choose freely its
own socio-economic and political system;"
A/RES/40/178 (1985) adopted by consensus
"Bearing in mind the right of States freely to choose and develop
their political, social, economic and cultural systems, as well as
their right to determine their laws and regulations,"
A/RES/41/132 (1986) US voted yes
"Reaffirming further the inalienable right of all peoples to determine
their own form of government and to choose their own economic,
political and social system free from outside intervention,
subversion, coercion or constraint of any kind whatsoever,"
A/RES/43/20 (1988) adopted by consensus
"Recalling that all States enjoy sovereign equality and that each
State has the right freely to choose and develop its political,
social, economic and cultural systems,"
A/RES/44/146 (1989) adopted by consensus
"Reaffirming also the inalienable right of all peoples to determine
their own form of government and to choose their own economic,
political and social system free from outside intervention,
subversion, coercion or constraint of any kind whatsoever,"
A/RES/45/12 (1990) adopted by consensus
"Recalling that, under the Charter, all States enjoy sovereign
equality and that each State, in accordance with the will of its
people, has the right freely to choose and develop its political,
social, economic and cultural systems,"
A/RES/46/137 (1991) US voted yes
This is where I got tired and stopped. One resolution containing this
right that the U.S. either voted for or did not oppose for every year
of the Reagan and Bush administrations except '87 and '92 (I didn't
bother to check, but I can probably fill those years in as well), for
which voting records also exist.
Sovereign equality is a founding principle of the United Nations and
international law. No one follows it, of course, but everyone says,
in their rhetoric, that they accept it. It's like how Americans
unanimously proclaim their adherence to the principle of free speech
and free press while simultaneously advocating the regulation of
pornography, commercial speech, and so forth. If you want to argue
that the US rejects the "inalienable right" of sovereign equality by
virtue of its actions, then, yes, it does. But so does almost every
state. You want to argue that it is against this right by virtue of
its rhetoric and voting, that it is opposed to this right on
ideological grounds, and to further claim that it is the only state in
the world to do so. This is a lie.
As to what I think about the principle of sovereign equality: from a
statist perspective, it might make some sense as a guiding principle
to avoid war. From an human perspective, it protects terrible abuses
by states such as slavery, genocide, fascism, and communism, as
paulsrb said. From an anti-imperialist perspective, it protects small
nations from force and conquest (recall that one of the main
principles driving late nineteenth century imperialism in Africa -- at
least rhetorically -- was the destruction of the slave trade). From
an anarchist perspective, it protects each state's monopoly of power
over its subjects.
So, in other words, like democracy, it has its benefits and failrues.
It simultaneously protects self-determination and hinders it. It
simultaneously protects decentralization of power and hinders it. And
so on. Thus it is extremely complicated to say with certainty whether
it is "good" or "bad", as one has to examine it in context.
- Nate
PS - Did you ever tell us which propaganda site you got this from?
Paulsrb
> You simply do not know when to quit, Josh:
Thanks for undertaking this splendid research effort. Based on the
evidence you have uncovered, I would like to concede your point about
the motivation for the Reagan Administration's negative vote on the
resolution at issue.
[snip]
> Sovereign equality is a founding principle of the United Nations and
> international law. No one follows it, of course, but everyone says,
> in their rhetoric, that they accept it. It's like how Americans
> unanimously proclaim their adherence to the principle of free speech
> and free press while simultaneously advocating the regulation of
> pornography, commercial speech, and so forth.
Surely honesty demands that the advocates of such regulation abandon
the concept of freedom of speech in favour of a more limited right,
such as freedom of opinion or freedom of conscience.
[snip]
> As to what I think about the principle of sovereign equality: from a
> statist perspective, it might make some sense as a guiding principle
> to avoid war. From an human perspective, it protects terrible abuses
> by states such as slavery, genocide, fascism, and communism, as
> paulsrb said. From an anti-imperialist perspective, it protects small
> nations from force and conquest (recall that one of the main
> principles driving late nineteenth century imperialism in Africa -- at
> least rhetorically -- was the destruction of the slave trade). From
> an anarchist perspective, it protects each state's monopoly of power
> over its subjects.
I agree entirely. Your final point highlights the peculiarity of Dan
Clore's position.
Nathan Folkert
[snip]
> [snip]
> > As to what I think about the principle of sovereign equality: [...]
> > From an anarchist perspective, it protects each state's monopoly of
> > power over its subjects.
>
> I agree entirely. Your final point highlights the peculiarity of Dan
> Clore's position.
Advocacy of sovereign equality is a strange position for any anarchist
or non-proprietarian. In its most general form, sovereign equality is
essentially a belief in the ownership and absolute property rights *of
states* over all the property *and people* in their domains.
Of course, an anarchist could advocate *in practice* sovereign
equality over likely alternatives (I prefer sovereign equality to
imperialism, for example), just as an anarchist could advocate one
form of existing government over another (Orwell sided with liberal
democracy against communism and fascism, for example).
- Nate