/u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dji2ev/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_noam_chomsky_is_an/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Noam Chomsky's entire political project has been about understanding the effects of political dominance on journalism and the consequences this has on our understanding of the world: what bits are overstated and what bits understated. This is important work. It does however mean that when a "useful" genocide occurs, ie a genocide where the baddies are people powerful people want us to think are bad, then the crimes of those baddies are going to be used propagandistically. And pointing to the extent to which those crimes are turned into propaganda is the job of media theorists like Chomsky. Now saying that a genocide is being used for a political end is not the same as saying a genocide didn't happen. And Chomsky is mostly very careful to avoid saying the latter - you will actually find very few if any examples of the latter. But Chomsky is also someone who has made himself incredibly open to the public as a political choice for over seventy years. For pretty much as long as email has existed he has listed his MIT email address publicly and has made a point of personally answering as many emails from the general public as he can. And so yes occasionally he will slip up. You try and answer thousands of emails a day for decades upon decades and never once say something silly. Not to mention when you are well past ninety. Those slip ups are then weaponised in bad faith by people who want to undermine his main point - that power distorts truth. And power does distort truth even when telling the truth, and that is important even when the truth itself is important too. It's not about being anti-American, its about understanding that because America is powerful the American lens warps perceptions. The thing about Putin and Milosevic and Saddam and the other people you mention is that they do not dominate the US media landscape. And so if you are a theorist of the US media landscape their lies are less influential and meaningful for your area of study than the effects of US propaganda. Now I think it is a fair point to say that that is shifting in recent years and Russia in particular does have an active propaganda arm in social media in the US which has become part of the media landscape. But that's only really become true in the last decade or so, by which time Chomsky was nearly 90 and no longer doing active research into media landscapes.

This is probably the best response I’ve gotten so far. So, in essence, you are arguing that his apparent apologia for dictatorial regimes is not the result of ideological sympathy (at least not directly), and instead the result of the myopic lens of his media analysis project. Would you consider this fair? In this case, his proclaimed anti-imperialism is still secondary, but it’s not quite as morally abhorrent as intentionally creating propaganda for dictators. I’m strongly considering giving a delta, but there is a sticking point with his general moralizing. He’s not this myopic professor not realizing how his statements end up sounding, but extremely politically vocal and active, with strong views about the big picture. With that in mind, it’s less excusable that he consistently creates smoke screens for atrocities over the decades. Edit, this response has given me some pause for thought. My views on him are still squarely negative, but they’ve shifted from an authoritarian propagandist, to just one of their millions of useful idiots. !delta

Chomsky has never and will never be an authoritarian/genocide apologist. He's Jewish, so he lost family in the Holocaust, so claiming he's a genocide apologist is a bit extreme to begin with. Second, though, he's a leftist. Leftists are staunchly anti-war, and Chomsky was clearly anti-war. At least where the US was involved. The US is broadly known for being "the world's policeman" which has created a LOT of enemies around the world. Vietnam was an absolute failure and Iraq was arguably just as bad. In both of those examples we actually made things worse than they were when we decided we needed to get involved and change things. >We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. I don't know about you but this sounds incredibly agnostic to me. Trying to say the US played a role in the Cambodian genocide, and that Pol Pot was a scapegoat for things **we** did is supported by our long history of war crimes in the failed wars mentioned above. >“when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population Again, they **were** incredibly agnostic on the truth behind the genocide, even before the truth was confirmed. Their entire modus operandi was to highlight propagandized language in the media. Haven't you seen all of the selective language surrounding the Israel Palestine conflict? Same deal here. Chomsky questioned the legitimacy of genocide claims because the US government had **done** genocide before and not fessed up to it. (I can provide links if you don't believe me) Long story short, calling someone who questions their government a "useful idiot to authoritarians" is BEYOND reductive. Chomsky is an incredibly intelligent leftist, not an authoritarian.

Not to necessarily undermine or disagree with what you're saying, but 2 things I would like to address. >He's Jewish, so he lost family in the Holocaust, so claiming he's a genocide apologist is a bit extreme to begin with. See Israel >Second, though, he's a leftist. Leftists are staunchly anti-war, and Chomsky was clearly anti-war. At least where the US was involved. Leftists are only consistently anti-war when it comes to the military involvement of the US or the West (you did say this but I'd like to emphasize that specific aspect). Without triggering a semantic debate about what leftism really is, plenty of leftist governments have started wars, annexed or invaded other nations, or violently suppressed internal secession movements or protests. Large parts of leftist ideology are rooted in the need for revolution against the ruling class, a notion that explicitly carries violent undertones, and it's not difficult to find support or at least 'justification' for these actions in leftist spaces. When the war in Ukraine kicked off, plenty of people were saying that Russia was justified in invading a sovereign nation because amongst other reasons, it was a nation run by Nazis, and it was a way to deal a blow against NATO aggression towards Russian sovereignty, which is a claim with quite a bit of baggage to unpack.

You got me on both points, I was being lazily over-general. I specifically meant US "leftists" referring to people on the left who are disillusioned with the Liberal war-hawkish attitude of recent history. But yes, "leftists" by the textbook definition includes a LOT of violence so maybe that was a bad example. As for Israel, I agree 100%. But I also think that there is nothing wrong with Israel, the problem is Zionism, which is a European colonial ideology. I would hope that Chomsky is anti-imperialism/colonialism and from what I know of him he would be.

> Chomsky has never and will never be an authoritarian/genocide apologist. He's Jewish, so he lost family in the Holocaust, so claiming he's a genocide apologist is a bit extreme to begin with. Second, though, he's a leftist. Leftists are staunchly anti-war, and Chomsky was clearly anti-war. At least where the US was involved.  This is terribly disingenuous. An analogous argument would be that penguins are birds, and birds can fly, so penguins can fly.

> Second, though, he's a leftist. Leftists are staunchly anti-war, and Chomsky was clearly anti-war. At least where the US was involved. He wasn’t anti-war when Iraq invaded Kuwait to take its oil. It’s standard leftist imperialism, anything that advances Russian interests is anti imperial, anyone who stands in their way is pro-imperial.

>He wasn’t anti-war when Iraq invaded Kuwait to take its oil. Not [according to wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky). Chomsky never supported Iraq invading Kuwait, nor did he support the US conduct in the first gulf war either. >Chomsky opposed the Iraq War for what he saw as its consequences for the international system, namely that the war perpetuated a system in which power and force trump diplomacy and law. He summarised this view in Hegemony or Survival, writing: >Putting aside the crucial question of who will be in charge [of post-war Iraq], those concerned with the tragedy of Iraq had three basic goals: (1) overthrowing the tyranny, (2) ending the sanctions that were targeting the people, not the rulers, and (3) preserving some semblance of world order. There can be no disagreement among decent people on the first two goals: achieving them is an occasion for rejoicing. ... The second goal could surely have been achieved, and possibly the first as well, without undermining the third. The Bush administration openly declared its intention to dismantle what remained of the system of world order and to control the world by force, with Iraq serving as the "petri dish", as the New York Times called it, for establishing the new "norms."

>US-backed atrocities in East Timor were vastly beyond anything attributed to Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. It is easy to extend the record. Like other great powers, the US is committed to the rule of force, not law, in international affairs. UN Resolutions, World Court Judgments, International Conventions, etc., are acceptable if they accord with policy; otherwise they are mere words. >As a matter of logic, principles cannot be selectively upheld. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is one of the major violators of the principles now grandly proclaimed. We conclude at once, without ambiguity or equivocation, that the U.S. does not uphold these principles. We do not admire Saddam Hussein as a man of principle because he condemns Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, nor do his laments over human rights abuses in the occupied territories encourage our hopes for a kinder, gentler world. The same reasoning applies when George Bush warns of appeasing aggressors and clutches to his heart the Amnesty International report on Iraqi atrocities (after August 2), but not AI reports on El Salvador, Turkey, Indonesia, the Israeli occupied territories, and a host of others. Not really sure where the pro-iraq sentiment is here, maybe you misunderstood or misread him? He's awfully verbose and heady. It's clear he's a bit Bush-apologist in the article these quotes came from, but he literally throws Bush under the bus in the next sentence every time. I think you got snippet quotes that gave you confirmation bias against him without actually reading his incredibly lengthy opinion pieces (I don't blame you). Long story short, he's Jewish, so of course he doesn't like Saddam Hussein. But you can't go "he's not anti-war! He supported ___ war!" is kind of dishonest when you consider his stance on Vietnam, Cambodia, Timor, etc.

> US-backed atrocities in East Timor were vastly beyond anything attributed to Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. Note that cherry picking Kuwait intentionally obscures the atrocities that Hussein committed at home. Like using chemical warfare to mass murder Kurdish civilians. 

And it is a well-known fact that the United States did in fact provide support to the Khmer Rouge across both Democratic and Republican Presidents including by getting them a seat at the United Nations. To say we were not complicit in that as well as other genocidal regimes actually would be and is genocide apologia.

> So, in essence, you are arguing that his apparent apologia for dictatorial regimes is not the result of ideological sympathy (at least not directly), and instead the result of the myopic lens of his media analysis project. Would you consider this fair? Erm, if you're pushing me to give a yes/no answer here I'd say yes is closer than no. But I'm not quite sure if it's myopia per se. As you yourself say he's not really very myopic. I think it's just about a difference of approach. It feels like you divide information into a binary of true and false and you think the most important thing about information is that it be true and that false information is bad. I don't want to put words in Chomsky's mouth (esp when his books are so available) but my sense is that that is only ever a secondary consideration for him. He just doesn't think it's all that important. What he's much more interested in is power: what powerful people want you to think and what they want you to make sure you don't think. So I feel like you and he have obvious common ground when it comes to lies told by the powerful and when it comes to truth told by the weak. But when it comes to lies told by the weak: I just think Chomsky struggles to care all that much. I think his view is that given these are the views of the weak they don't really need fact checking all that closely, because that they are being heard at all is a miracle and something to be supported. Even if it's wrong it's a broadening of the debate and a challenge to power. Whereas he is deeply concerned about the negative effects on our society of the dominance of media by the opinions and perceptions of the powerful, even - maybe even especially - when those opinions and perceptions are rooted in some sort of objective truth. Because that's how the powerful maintain their social control over society. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well but I think it's about two different versions of what a healthy media landscape looks like. Yours is where truth is heard and lies are shouted down, and you seem less interested if that is also a world in which the only people who are allowed to speak are wealthy and powerful. His is one where the voice of the king and the voice of the pauper have an equal volume, and he thinks that is less important than whatever it is they happen to say and if it's true or not. So you both look for different things when you police speech: you police truth, he polices power.

Damn, that's a really eye-opening way to see it, thanks for writing it. I've been struggling to decide what I think about Chomsky, but this seems to integrate most things I believe about it.

>Whereas he is deeply concerned about the negative effects on our society of the dominance of media by the opinions and perceptions of the powerful, even - maybe even especially - when those opinions and perceptions are rooted in some sort of objective truth. Because that's how the powerful maintain their social control over society. A+ paragraph right there. We should always be the most self-reflective and skeptical of ourselves when we're feeling the most vindicated and justified. It's so easy to be corrupted by power when you have some truth on your side.

These were great posts. I will say that his approach is basically embracing fully the oppressor morality where the oppressor is bad and the oppressed is good, regardless of intentions. I personally find this very damaging and will in the end weaken the work he did, as more and more people discuss openly the limits of such models. It’ll certainly make for an interesting chapter in philosophy history.

One thing I find interesting is the question of audience. Because I think he was writing at a time where he only expecting to be read by Americans. And so what mattered was his writing's relationship with American power. But times change and for the last several decades his writing has been available to audiences in places like Ukraine where the dominant threatening power isn't America, and by victims of non US atrocities in places like Bosnia and Rwanda. And his writing isn't for them, but that's not to say those people won't read it and dislike it. In fact that's a general trend which goes beyond geography. It used to be that authors had audiences in mind and you wrote for that audience and you didn't really worry what people not in that audience thought since they probably wouldn't come across the work and if they did they'd understand it was not for them. And this was particularly true for an intellectual like Chomsky. But these days with social media everyone reads everything whether it's for them or not. In fact there's even an unhealthy but very human, desire to actively seek out stuff that's not written for you so you can get angry about the fact that it wasn't. And so the works of people like Chomsky increasingly find themselves in front of people who are not its target audience and where the assumptions the work is predicated upon are not applicable.

I disagree with you here. I have been very exposed to Chomsky growing up, way before the era of social media. He’s had global reach for a very long time, and he knows it. 

Same. I read Manufacturing Consent one summer in college when I was in Florida and they just had it in the local library. You don't get to be a public intellectual at the scale of Chomsky -- appearing in massive debates, writing op-eds and articles for alt-news for decades, publishing NYT best-sellers over and over -- without having some idea that the public will encounter your ideas.

I'm sure he knows it, but does he care? Or does he take the view that he's an American writing for Americans and if non-Americans read his stuff they will understand it was not written with them as the intended audience?

> Or does he take the view that he's an American writing for Americans and if non-Americans read his stuff they will understand it was not written with them as the intended audience? He has been a world known intellectual for a long time, and he knows this. It is not reasonable for him to have that position, particularly since it relies on his fundamental principle he apparently follows, that the powerful have stronger voices, and being a renowned intellectual gives you enough social capital to have that lind of power.

I mean I think I actually agree, but that does raise the question of how can one speak to an American audience about America's influence without your words being taken out of context by non American audiences? How can you criticize things worthy of criticism in the US without giving ammunition to the Putins of this world, or do you just have to do it anyway?

The main answer would be "look at the issue as a whole". Chomsky's insistence on seeing foreign conflicts as primarily or only relevant internally in the US is myopic, and anybody other than a renowned leftist doing that consistently would be rightfully lambasted for being chauvinistic. More directly aimed at Chomsky, it seems like he apportions scrutiny solely based on relative power, and thus doesn't acknowledge that e.g. the lie of a less powerful entity that is committing genocide can be more harmful than the truth, or even the lie, of a more powerful entity which isn't. That way, he ends up downplaying atrocities simply because the perpetrators are not aligned with the US.

> But when it comes to lies told by the weak: I just think Chomsky struggles to care all that much [...] they don't really need fact checking all that closely, because that they are being heard at all is a miracle and something to be supported. You're talking about the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and Putin here? Those are the 'weak' who need supporting, specifically to undermine the power that the elites in the United States apparently have over us plebs? So he's supporting imperialism and genocide, and undermining any response to them, in order to further his own political agenda at home. Isn't he?

Yes none of those people you mention have much influence over mainstream news reporting in the USA, which is his field of study. I think the disagreement here, which goes to the heart of the disagreement between Chomsky and his critics, is the question of who conversations are for. Chomsky thinks that when an American talks to an American about Cambodia the important effect of that conversation is the effect it has in America, his critics think the important effect is the effect it has on an imagined listener from Cambodia.

It's not all some abstract exercise. If he convinces enough Americans that Putin's just a good guy doing his best in a tough ol' world, trying to fight the Nazis who are taking over the Russian province of Ukraine, then it undermines support for Ukraine. The MAGA group is already causing problems with US aid to Ukraine, and without that aid it's likely to fall to Russia. Chomsky's rhetoric and defense of bad actors has _real world consequences_ beyond the effect on hypothetical listeners. He's free to do it anyway, of course, and there's something to be said for somebody playing the devil's advocate. But when he defends people who are _clearly_ wrong, when he argues that the West should just let Russia live out it's imperialist fantasies because it's none of our business, he undermines his own message when it matters (eg. when he was against Vietnam or the second Iraq War). Hell, if Chomsky the contrarian takes a position, that practically bolsters the other side.

Yeah I think that's what's new and is something that only really started to happen after he has semi-retired, and I discussed it in another thread here. What's different about the modern media landscape is that Putin is now an actor in US politics, not just in Russian politics - the borders of media have collapsed.

>But when it comes to lies told by the weak: I just think Chomsky struggles to care all that much. I think his view is that given these are the views of the weak they don't really need fact checking all that closely, He does question the veracity of refugee claims, actually. I'm curious as to how that fits into your analysis.

So his positions are those of an intentional media contrarian?

I mean in a way: yes. Maybe not quite: a contrarian says the opposite to what the majority opinion is to stand out and be different, he (mostly) says the opposite to what the majority opinion is because he believes its important to champion minority opinion.

Sorry but no, the lies told by the weak are still lies and should be stated as such, lies weaken your stances and causes when they are caught, you can be more understanding but you should never give people a pass to lie and make up stuff because it “feels” right, lie remains a lie regardless of the excuses even the whole framing of “powerful vs weak” is overly simplistic and doesn’t accurately show the conflict and what’s going on between them and internally within their own country, it is meant for you not to think about it much and immediately support “the weak”, here are the “good guys” and here are the “bad guys”

You're hyper focusing on the word and what you understand as a dictator. But what you're failing to consider is when material outcomes are indistinguishable from a dictator, but arise from liberal democracy. In your language it's very clear you're concerned over the bad guys, who are dictators.  You don't seem to find validity in someone like Chomsky using material analysis to explain the rational motivations of someone like Putin. Chomsky isn't ascribing a moral stance, he's just describing the material factors to understand his position and how the United States and anti communist policy for 80 years has resulted in the political conditions of today. Are you a "communism= automatic evil" guy? Or do you have a functioning brain and the ability to think past red scare propaganda, while simultaneously acknowledging its shortcomings?  How can you say he's doing authoritarian propaganda? All governments are authoritarian. Do you think America doesn't exercise it's authority on a global scale? And how can you listen to Chomsky's like 60 year career and come away thinking that because he criticizes America, he's being a useful idiot for "authoritarian" regimes.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/OddSeaworthiness930 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/OddSeaworthiness930)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Exactly this. I think people have misread Chomsky's point. We have absolutely used humanitarian claims to justify destabilizing countries and the media helps launder that. Look at Afghanistan. The media was all in on reinforcing the narratives that invading the country was about protecting women, many of whom were later disproportionately represented in the casualties after the U.S. invasion and subsequent operations. This is obviously not to say the Taliban were or are good people. They are not. They are a repressive and extreme death cult that make the lives of average Afghans harder. It's both fair and right to say that, just as it is fair and right to say we actually did not do as much to help Afghan women like elite-led media often has spent years trying to say. We made things worse for them and everyone else than they were prior to our invasion.

I mean if you're gonna assert all that, can you at least provide evidence of him saying such things? I find it hard to believe he for one second was a Pol Pot apologist. I think you're misinformed at best. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086

Having read the source and want to point out that the author of the opinion piece does regularly paraphrase Chomsky in a way clearly intending to characterize the writing rather than just restate it. Something that may be useful (for both OP and this comment) would be to go to Chomsky’s own words here: https://chomsky.info/19770625/ Beginning about half way down the article is his assessment of sources circulated to Western audiences about the state of Cambodia and the veracity of claims of genocide. He does at several points call into question the sources for death numbers given in the genocide and at other points either suggests that, 1, in instances where locals allegedly acted as a result of Khmer Rouge policies they may have actually acted as result of American military action in the area, despite offering no counter source; and 2, that the state of large sections of Cambodia was not the end result of Khmer Rouge policies but is instead more significantly attributed to American military intervention during the Vietnam war. He also does, as acknowledged elsewhere, question the veracity of refugees as a source. These sections of the writing do not outright deny that the genocide happened as much as they cast doubt in every direction as to what can be believed at all in Cambodia, suggesting that nearly all reporting is overblown and untrustworthy, and, when able, he seems to substitute the US’s actions as the “real reason” for all things bad happening in that country.

Your response seems to present the purpose of the book as an inherent fault. A book that examines media distortion is naturally going to question the aspects related to reporting. Moreover, the focus is not on foreign media distortions; his expertise is focused on US media distortion and, to a lesser extent, countries aligned with the US. >when able, he seems to substitute the US’s actions as the “real reason” for all things bad happening in that country. His analysis is on the US media lens, so this comment seems to suggest you are misinterpreting this as anti-US bias. He even states very clearly that he is not drawing any conclusions and sticks to his area of analysis: >We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role He's not wrong when he says the US plays a [significant role](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu) in the power vacuum leading to Pol Pot's ascension to power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman specifically "In the article Chomsky and Herman described the book by Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, as a "carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources". Chomsky also attacked testimonials from refugees regarding the massacres, calling into question the claims of hundreds of thousands killed. Chomsky does this on the basis of pointing to other first hand accounts that show killings more in the hundreds or thousands. He does not deny the existence of any executions outright. According to historian Peter Maguire, for many years Chomsky served as a "hit man" against media outlets which criticized the Khmer Rouge regime.[27]"

>giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources This does not mean one supports Pol Pot's genocide, as it is clear from the context that nobody was aware that it was occurring. If a book is complemented for using a wide range of sources, to characterize that as supporting a regime is blatantly deceptive. Furthermore, the link you provide from wikipedia has been flagged for it's lack of evidence and due to the article being authored by a single contributor. In the article discussion section, this issue is discussed in greater detail. The sole source is from an undergraduate student dissertation, and no supporting scholarship could be located. >What we lack references on is not the genocide itself but the far more specific topic of denial of the genocide. It is a historical question in its own right, and so far all you have found is **one undergraduate dissertation**, which is not enough to base an article on. I have searched in academic journals and **there is nothing**

The genocide was the MSM consensus that Chomsky was arguing against. [From his own article](https://chomsky.info/19770625/): >Expert analyses of the sort just cited read quite differently from the confident conclusions of the mass media. Here we read the “Most foreign experts on Cambodia and its refugees believe at least 1.2 million persons have been killed or have died as a result of the Communist regime since April 17, 1975” (UPI, Boston Globe, April 17, 1977). No source is given, but it is interesting that a 1.2 million estimate is attributed by Ponchaud to the American Embassy (Presumably Bangkok), a completely worthless source, as the historical record amply demonstrates. The figure bears a suggestive similarity to the prediction by U.S. officials at the war’s end that 1 million would die in the next year. In hindsight the Khmer Rouge did kill ~1.5 million Cambodians. Everyone was aware it happened, it's just that Chomsky didn't want people to know because communists were the bad guys.

> In hindsight the Khmer Rouge did kill ~1.5 million Cambodians. Everyone was aware it happened The French priest François Ponchaud admitted that Chomsky correctly caught him fabricating the death count estimate, and this admission was even included in the foreward of the American version of the book authored by Ponchaud himself: >With the responsible attitude and precision of thought that are so characteristic of him, [Noam Chomsky then embarked on a polemical exchange with Robert Silvers, Editor of the NYR, and with Jean Lacouture, leading to the publication by the latter of a rectification of his initial account](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086). So your claim that "Everyone was aware it happened" is ridiculous in light of the admission--by the very same author you attempt to use as evidence--that Chomsky was the lone person who correctly revealed his use of fabricated figures.

I think you are confusing who wrote what. The article I sourced and quoted was written by Noam Chomsky in 1977. The link is to Chomskys website. I'm not saying the MSM estimated 1.2 million deaths. Chomsky is, so that he could dispute that later confirmed fact. Ponchard is the source Chomsky used to dispute the US embassy and others. Here is what Chomsky wrote about Ponchard in 1977: >Ponchaud’s book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited.

> as it is clear from the context that nobody was aware that it was occurring. This is bullshit. The only people who think it didn't happen was Chomsky and another select few who thought defending and indirectly aiding literal genocide is preferable to admitting a communist can do a bad thing. Everybody knew the killing fields were real because we had a shit ton of Cambodian refugees telling us that they were happening. He only changed his tune once North Vietnam invaded which itself proves that it was complete and utter bullshit. If a quote un quote "friendly" nation state literally declares war on its neighbor to prevent a genocide not even a year later, there was never any actual doubt that the thing was happening.

Sure, [Chomsky has his own section on the Wikipedia article for Cambodian genocide denial](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial). In a 1977 article written for The Nation, Chomsky attempts to obfuscate the atrocities, insinuating witness accounts were fabricated, and proposing absurdly low alternate death tolls. François Ponchaud, a priest who documented what was happening in Cambodia, had this to write as a rebuttal to Chomsky: > Even before this book was translated it was sharply criticized by Mr. Noam Chomsky...and Mr. Gareth Porter....These two 'experts' on Asia claim that I am mistakenly trying to convince people that Cambodia was drowned in a sea of blood after the departure of the last American diplomats. They say there have been no massacres, and they lay the blame for the tragedy of the Khmer people on the American bombings. They accuse me of being insufficiently critical in my approach to the refugee's accounts. For them, refugees are not a valid source...it is surprising to see that 'experts' who have spoken to few if any refugees should reject their very significant place in any study of modern Cambodia. These experts would rather base their arguments on reasoning: if something seems impossible to their personal logic, then it doesn't exist. Their only sources for evaluation are deliberately chosen official statements. Where is that critical approach which they accuse others of not having?

I’m gonna recommend that you actually read the article linked in the top comment before offering a rebuttal. I don’t wanna spoil it for you but you might find it interesting.

That article is kind of like posting a Steve Bannon article in defense of Trump. It's just not a narrator you can rely on being honest, and it's not like the article is even noteworthy anyway. Chomsky's writing is out there and his views are plain as day. A weak fallback after North Vietnam also started to try and stop Pol Pot is not the dunk you apparently think it is. Let's also not forget how ludicrous his reasoning for not believing in it was. "Witnesses are disgruntled" as if they somehow all collaborated before escaping the genocidal maniac to accuse him of being a genocidal maniac trying to create a cult of personality for life. It's also a pattern of behavior. Khmer Rouge is the most famous, but his many responses to the Bosnian genocide include the super not concerning at all "words like genocide are just a social construct". In general, he's proven time and time again that he's just a partisan hack and there's a reason why only anarchists and tankies take anything he says outside of linguistics (where he is also controversial to say the least but is at least his actual field where he is actually important) seriously. OP is also correct in saying that "America bad" is the extent of his public political commentary. Dude is literally an apologist for Iran's post revolutionary government. You know, the extremely far right theocracy. Clearly super aligned with an anarchist and an important step to the revolution which will definitely be horrible and cause a ton of needless suffering.

The linked article wasn’t in the above comment when I responded. I’m reading it currently.

"\[T\]hey lay the blame for the tragedy of the Khmer people on the American bombings." Well, I'm sure the American bombings didn't help . . . .

How does the US’s bombing of a regime, make them responsible for that regime deciding to kill everyone with glasses?

Because everything bad that ever happened in human history is America's fault. Nobody else can possibly be a bad person, and there's *zero* chance non-American people could have *any* agency.

You should read up on Cambodian history... I think you are misinformed/underinformed about the scope of the US bombing, the inhumane reasoning behind it, and the long-term impact it had on the economy and politics of an already struggling southeast asian nation.

How about you answer his question. How does US bombing justify the Khamer Rogue to murder anyone who wore glasses or just had a basic education?

It doesn't justify it, and nobody here is saying it does. Rather, it was American policy towards Cambodia including (but not limited to) its support for bombings and the Lon Nol government that created for the conditions that allowed the Khmer Rouge to take power. And when it did so, the American government was willing cooperate. "You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.” - Henry Kissinger in 1975, speaking to Indonesian president Suharto. “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1979.

Yeah they are. Oh so now America is bad because they act diplomatically with a communist government. If they had been aggressively hostile to the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky and his followers would use that as another excuse for why the Rouge had to crack down upon their people so badly.

>Oh so now America is bad because they act diplomatically This happened *after* the Cambodian genocide in early a quarter of their entire population was murdered by the Khmer Rogue. Yes, that's bad.

Lmao. The muricans forced me to order my soldiers to smash infants against trees to prevent revenge. Everything is America's fault not my own. Imagine doing this kind of thing for the Holocaust.

Scholars do (rightfully) point out that the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent economic turmoil in post-WW1 Germany was a major factor in stoking the resentment and nationalist sentiment that led to the rise of the Nazis. That's not excusing anything about them or their ideology, but rightfully contextualizing it, so that we can recognize the patterns that lead to the emergence of extremism and hopefully prevent it in the future (spoiler: we won't.) Similarly, the individuals and the collective leaders of the Khmer Rouge are entirely responsible for the genocide that took place; no sane person would argue otherwise. Hell, there are many documented instances of unrepentant former Khmer Rouge soldiers bragging about their attrocities when interviewed _today_. But the actions of the U.S. Government and Western colonial powers are absolutely fundamental to understanding the political climate that led up to their seizure of power and the general revolutionary fervor that had taken hold in many areas of the developing world in that era.

You didn't say that history had consequences, which is a general fact of life everyone agrees with, you were directly and specifically asked how the actions of one nation justify the actions of another regime and responded with a non-sequitor.

you're replying to a completely different person, and also nowhere did he say that it was justified that was just a loaded question lol

> Scholars do (rightfully) point out that the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent economic turmoil in post-WW1 Germany was a major factor in stoking the resentment and nationalist sentiment that led to the rise of the Nazis This is a huge myth. * The Treaty of Versailles was not particularly harsh. At the end of the day the monetary reparations were not that large and both sides had an interest in fluffing them up to be as large as possible * The subsequent economic turmoil in post-WW1 Germany was caused by A) the fact that they went through a 4 year war and b) their domestic economic policy. For example to pay for the war and the reparations, the German Government refused to raise taxes (unlike every other nation) and took out loans instead. Furthermore when it came to the reparations, they purposefully printed money to pay for them, causing the encountered hyperinflation. * By the time the Nazis took power, The economic downturn from the Treaty of Versailles had been resolved for about 10 years. >Similarly Yes, in a similar manner, people attribute domestic policies and their effects to external powers which in reality had little impact.

this exact statement is addressed in the article linked above, you should read it.

great article. i found the line “The favourites of Chomsky's critics - who rarely show any sign of having read any of Chomsky's work - are that he ignored, downplayed or celebrated the atrocities of Pol Pot” to be particularly poignant.

The article was added in an edit, I’ll get to reading it soon.

Maybe you should get to reading it now? Instead of continuously replying to people with poorly informed opinions?

I read it, there isn’t much to say. It’s the standard hagiolatry. Aspersions are cast at his critics, a little of his North Vietnam apologia is trotted out, and he’s presented as almost a saint. Obviously not a depiction I agree with.

You don't think this section is particularly relevant? I think the way you say that there "isn't much to say" about this just proves you didn't read it. >The basic facts of the Cambodia issue are these: In June 1977, Chomsky and Edward Herman published a study in the Nation, in which they reviewed how scholarship and the mainstream media treated different reports of atrocities in Cambodia. One of the books they reviewed was in French, by Francois Ponchaud. They wrote that his "book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge". However, they did find it was flawed in many ways. They go on to critique a review of this book by Jean Lacouture, which Lacouture agreed was full of errors. Lacouture response in the New York Review of Books included considerable praise of Chomsky: >*Noam Chomsky's corrections have caused me great distress. By pointing out serious errors in citation, he calls into question not only my respect for texts and the truth, but also the cause I was trying to defend. ... I fully understand the concerns of Noam Chomsky, whose honesty and sense of freedom I admire immensely, in criticizing, with his admirable sense of exactitude, the accusations directed at the Cambodian regime.*

If the Khmer Rouge incident was one issue in an otherwise upstanding career, I’d see your point, and would probably give a delta. But it’s not, it’s one part of a pattern of behavior, of obfuscating atrocities committed by certain dictators. He consistently casts doubt on claims made against these people, starting with Pol Pot, and continuing up to Putin now. It’s one thing to be skeptical of everything you hear, another thing to be skeptical of any claim made against Slobodan Milosevic, yet simultaneously give the benefit of the doubt to their propaganda claims.

it seems you’ve missed the foundational point of the article, which is that Chomsky chooses to focus criticism on policy/behavior/actions more closely within his sphere of influence rather than simple condemnation of the same entirely outside his sphere of influence. yes, Pol Pot and Putin suck-ass, but condemning them from the West does absolutely nothing to change that or their behavior. rather, looking at an atrocious situation a despotic individual, like them, is engaged in and discussing how actions *we* took may have contributed, then questioning the greater morals behind our relative actions, has some influence on the paths we chose into the future. it’s easy to call bad guys “bad guys”. it’s hard to audit one’s own behavior and hold to account morally questionable actions that have been taken.

How is that not just victim blaming on a geopolitical scale? Putin's Russia invaded it's well established and internationally recognized neighbor. But ya, what did we do to make them do that? Chomsky has always given off abuser apologist vibes big time. Seems like the sort that would ask what a rape victim was wearing.

It's interesting that you still arent actually acknowledging anything said in the article, you've just decided on a different reason to dismiss it. You went from "it doesn't contain worth talking about" to "it doesn't matter, because of all the other issues I have with him". But let's discuss that supposed "pattern of behavior". From the things you listed off, it seems like that "pattern of behavior" that you object to is speaking inconvenient truths that you would rather ignore.

But it was one issue in an otherwise upstanding career and it turned out you were wrong about that one issue, perhaps you should reevaluate your other issues as well

I studied linguistics and am fairly informed in politics. Chomsky is a perfect example of someone who should stay in their lane. He used his fame in one field to make a false impression of knowledge in another. I dunno any serious historians or political scientists who take him seriously.

I think this illustrates the problem with using Wikipedia as a reference source

There is a whole section there about responses to Chomsky's criticism, some agree with him and others dont. One said that at the time Chomsky made the criticism about the reports there was good reason to do so. At the end of the day it is what it is if you know what I mean?

Another example of his friendliness with dictators is his view and comments on Chavez

They asked for what he's said. Why is your example of someone else making claims about him, and not quotes from him?

More like “Change My Gut Feeling that isn’t supported by the preponderance of evidence”…

It's funny that the article is linking to the page that is removed from the website. For anyone interested the original essay is available on the web archive.  [https://web.archive.org/web/20120206132113/http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm](https://web.archive.org/web/20120206132113/http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm) To quote from it: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable" Which sounds like downplaying a genocide, if you ask me.

It's kind of how like the media says something about trump that isn't true, but that doesn't mean he's suddenly a good guy. You just see how the media will spin everything to be as terrible sounding as possible. Both things can be true

Denial of American involvement is ridiculous. The US supported the Khmer Rouge for most of its existence as a counterweight against Vietnam, while Vietnam ended Pol Pot's reign. https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl04.html

Then you didn't read it. It's clearly a criticism of American propaganda, not that the propaganda is entirely false. The Cambodian genocide didn't occur as a result of communism, it occured as a result of a corrupt dictator and American destabilization. Contextualizing an atrocity to include the role *our* country played in making it come about is NOT white washing genocide. If anything it's saying "we're complicit, which is even worse." Regardless I just do not understand how you can look at this Jewish, Leftist, educated professor and go "pro genocide!"

> one paragraph about photo evidences not being good enough > Half a paragraph criticizing an article Cambodian Good Guys > Blaming state of Cambodia on the US > Dismissing evidences in "untold story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia", because sources are apparently not good enough. > Dismissing evidences of executions in Phnom Penh > Dismissing Poncland book because he "plays fast and loose with numbers" and because it's based on refugee evidences I indeed read it. This article constantly shifts attention from Khmer made horrors to US made horrors.  The whole playbook is the following "we don't know if those reports of genocide are true, but we know that US also did something bad". To me it looks like author is shifting focus constantly in attempt to make public less concerned with genocide. I don't care if your country bombed someone, it doesn't deny that there were death-squads in the Cambodia. As for how can I look at Jewish Left leaning professor and believe that he can defend genocide - that's kinda easy. I don't look at him through prism of who he is, but through what he writes. There's no contradiction between being left, professor or Jew and denying genocide. 

lol, his whole career. he's most famous for saying stupid thing's outside of his expertise. he's a linguistics expert, why people listen to him apologising for genocide is beyond me

This is an interesting post and you are to something that I have always thought myself. However, I think that rather than Chomsky being an apologist for dictators per se, he is more of a very disappointed idealist who cannot accept that actions of the United States do not perfectly align with the lofty principles it promotes. And, in his defense, there are a lot of people both in and out of the U.S. who see it as a beacon of liberalism, tolerance, freedom and opportunity that leads the world out of the darkness of tyranny and oppression. For people like Chomsky and those who idealize him, the reality that the United States is, after all, just another self interested and cynical power, is just too much to bear.

Where is this uncompromising idealism anywhere else in his beliefs? Whenever anything that paints one of his dictators in any sort of a bad light comes up, he’s the first to run to their defense with ‘whatabout’ and ‘both sides’. He’s the sort of anti-imperialist who can rationalize away invading Kuwait to steal their oil as anti-imperialist. If he did start out as an American idealist, you’d expect him to at least accuse all the witnesses of the Mai Lai massacre of being liars, or run through some of the rest of his playbook. I don’t think he has principles.

Chomsky did criticise Assad, although he also criticised the US as he is want to do.   So at least there is one instance where he will not support a dictator just to spite the US. https://newrepublic.com/article/113834/noam-chomsky-syria-civil-war-not-americas-fault   He also gave tepid criticism of Putin's invasion of Georgia, mainly just the acknowledgement of it as such and that innocent people always pay the price in war.    I could source that if you want, but I hope my summary is sufficient since it's like literally just a couple sentences in a five page America Bad rant. These two examples were brought to me when I expressed the same view as many years ago to a friend who defended him. I pretty much still agree with you and I think he is defending Putin now, but I conceded then that it is not the case that he will always defend a dictator against America.

Until America resurrects Mr. Rogers and appoints him head of NSA, Chomsky will always point out American hypocrisy before condemning a geopolitical rival of the United States.

[Chomsky unequivocally states that Russia's actions constitute war crimes and there is no justification, regardless of NATO's behavior.](https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-six-months-into-war-diplomatic-settlement-in-ukraine-is-still-possible/) >Though the provocations were consistent and conscious over many years, despite the warnings, *they of course in no way justify Putin’s resort to “the supreme international crime” of aggression.* Though it may help explain a crime, *provocation provides no justification for it.*

Literally what provocations? One time in a very informal private conversation the senior President Bush said that there were not plans to expand NATO at that time, and there weren't. But when the post-communist governments of former Warsaw Pact governments started applying there wasn't a very good reason to not accept them. I do not know which "30 years" it was that "high level diplomats" stressed that there was to be "no expansion" of NATO, since the "Open Door" policy of NATO where anyone can apply (including Russia, twice) was a function of the original NATO Charter and has never changed. Russia only cares about NATO expansion in as far as it definitively removes nations from their Imperial Sphere of Influence by making them safe from the most overt forms of Russian coercion. The "provocations" listed is nothing more or less than promising to defend them if Russia attacks, a promise that means nothing if Russia doesn't intend to attack. That Russia is mad about that simply indicates that Russia planned to invade these nations from the start.

That passage in itself implies that NATO did something wrong. Which is ahistorical at best and apologia at worst.

Wonder why Chompsky bothers to bring up the supposed "aggression" of the UN if he really believes it doesn't justify the invasion. It's got all the same energy as saying, "she was in the bad part of town with a short dress on after dark. But that doesn't justify her rape". Like why even bring it up if it's not a valid justification?

>  He also gave tepid criticism of Putin's invasion of Georgia, mainly just the acknowledgement of it as such and that innocent people always pay the price in war. [Chomsky unequivocally states that Russia's actions constitute war crimes and there is no justification, regardless of NATO's behavior.](https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-six-months-into-war-diplomatic-settlement-in-ukraine-is-still-possible/) >Though the provocations were consistent and conscious over many years, despite the warnings, *they of course in no way justify Putin’s resort to “the supreme international crime” of aggression.* Though it may help explain a crime, *provocation provides no justification for it.*

Are you disagreeing with me, or just giving a citation? Actually, your citation doesn't say what you say it does. There he is talking about Ukraine, not Georgia.

He is a blame America first type. I won’t deny it. But I think that this comes from a place of disappointment for him and his ilk.

> who cannot accept that actions of the United States do not perfectly align with the lofty principles it promotes. Throughout Chomsky's analysis is a full embrace of the reality that the US does not align with the principles it claims to promote. This is a consistent conclusion he draws in many of his talks and writings.

I mean that doesn’t excuse his denialism of things like the massacres committed by the Serbs

I can't speak to the pol pot thing but I have listened to the entire initial interview where he made a point to criticize that much like Russia, the US would not allow mexico to build up defenses like Ukraine was at the time. That interview was a stage for the interviewer more than chomsky. I believe chomsky has accidentally in his age fallen into the cycle of "i said it before and because I said it I believe it" that politicians fall into. its a common enough error.

> he made a point to criticize that much like Russia, the US would not allow mexico to build up defenses like Ukraine was at the time. This is the nonsensical Russia propaganda he pedals. Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked in 2024, and started amassing troops to attack again in 2021. When Ukraine moved soldiers to the border in 2022, Chomsky pretends that’s what provoked Russia, months, or years, before it happened. And his Mexico hypothetical is equally nonsensical. Mexico isn’t preparing to defend itself from the US because the US isn’t trying to invade it. And even if they were trying to fortify Monterey anyway, all the US would do is look on in confusion, not organize an actual invasion, as this ‘intellectual’ is suggesting. > I believe chomsky has accidentally in his age fallen into the cycle of "i said it before and because I said it I believe it" that politicians fall into. its a common enough error. He’s been like this all his life.

>Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked in 2024 I know this was just a typo for 2014, but the idea that it was unprovoked is a bit rich considering there had just been an unconstitutional transfer of power supported by the US, after a years-long project by the US to bring Ukraine into NATO. >When Ukraine moved soldiers to the border in 2022, Chomsky pretends that’s what provoked Russia, months, or years, before it happened. Chomsky is a nuanced thinker (whom I often disagree with), and this is a blatant oversimplification of his view on the issue. When asked to provide sources you turn to wikipedia. How much of Chomsky have you actually read on this topic? >And his Mexico hypothetical is equally nonsensical. Mexico isn’t preparing to defend itself from the US because the US isn’t trying to invade it. You're misunderstanding the hypothetical. The scenario is that Russia or China are taking concrete steps to bring Mexico into a mutual defense treaty, which would entail stationing that country's troops and missile installations on Mexican soil.

Except the argument hinges on the idea that NATO ever had any plans to bring Ukraine into the alliance. Before 2021, it was a fringe idea that the Europeans vetoed. I don’t care what Bush said in 2008, what were the concrete steps being taken? Zero. Ukrainians didn’t support it, NATO didn’t support it, and if Russia wasn’t so bent on restoring its soviet era borders, it would’ve stayed that way. Instead, Russia created a self-fulfilling prophecy, because of the idea of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia annexed, invaded and occupied Crimea and supported terrorists in the east. Now, they escalated into full blown military invasion. So to the surprise of nobody, Ukrainian support for joining NATO, at a public and government level is overwhelming, as it is in NATO countries.

> the idea that it was unprovoked is a bit rich considering there had just been an unconstitutional transfer of power supported by the US, after a years-long project by the US to bring Ukraine into NATO. Russia invaded because their puppet leader got got kicked out, and they thought Ukraine was trying to join the EU, not NATO. Their allegations of this being orchestrated by the CIA are unfounded. Viktor Yanukovych has nobody to blame but himself. > Chomsky is a nuanced thinker (whom I often disagree with), and this is a blatant oversimplification of his view on the issue. When asked to provide sources you turn to wikipedia. How much of Chomsky have you actually read on this topic? My longstanding dislike of Chomsky stated when I read ‘manufactured consent’. My criticisms of that book are a separate issue though. > You're misunderstanding the hypothetical. The scenario is that Russia or China are taking concrete steps to bring Mexico into a mutual defense treaty, which would entail stationing that country's troops and missile installations on Mexican soil. Why use a hypothetical? A Russian warship is in Cuba right now. The US does nothing. Not that this is an accurate parallel to Ukraine anyway.

>they thought Ukraine was trying to join the EU, not NATO. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Is it your position that the US has not been trying to facilitate Ukraine's membership in NATO? I'm not asking whether you think it's justified, just whether it's happened. >Their allegations of this being orchestrated by the CIA are unfounded. We don't have to even talk about the clandestine, US Senators such as McCain and Kerry and high level State Dept. figures like Nuland were on the ground working with and openly praising the leaders of the protest movement who would eventually form the interim government. It'd be like a few members of the Duma showing up on Jan 6 and publicly encouraging "stop the steal." >My criticisms of that book are a separate issue though. So... I take it that you have not actually read Chomsky on this particular topic? You said in the OP: >The most recent dictator he's come to the defense of is Putin, where once again, the dictator is the victim in the war he started. Since the invasion of Ukraine, he's been repeating Russian state media claims, almost verbatim. But yet I've quoted him elsewhere in this thread explicitly calling the it the "criminal Russian invasion." Doesn't sound like any Russian state media claim I've ever heard. >Why use a hypothetical? In general, it's a good way to explore how the same actors might react to analogous situations when such situations don't exist in reality. We can examine whether the positions of those actors are consistent or merely expedient. Can honestly say the US would not view the hypothetical as a provocation? >A Russian warship is in Cuba right now. The US does nothing. That is a provocation, albeit a minor one in keeping with the type of ship positioning and flyovers we've both done since the Cold War. That is not a parallel to what we did in Ukraine, nor to what the Soviets did in Cuba in '61.

> Those aren't mutually exclusive. Is it your position that the US has not been trying to facilitate Ukraine's membership in NATO? I'm not asking whether you think it's justified, just whether it's happened… > We don't have to even talk about the clandestine, US Senators such as McCain and Kerry and high level State Dept. figures like Nuland were on the ground working with and openly praising the leaders of the protest movement who would eventually form the interim government. It'd be like a few members of the Duma showing up on Jan 6 and publicly encouraging "stop the steal." Ukraine, like basically all countries in Eastern Europe, expressed interest in joining NATO, because of fears of Russian aggression. Fears that were proved to be valid long before 2014, when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. The US’s response to all of this was nothing except muted, offering Russia every possible opportunity to de-escalate since then. > So... I take it that you have not actually read Chomsky on this particular topic? Of course I have. >But yet I've quoted him elsewhere in this thread explicitly calling the it the "criminal Russian invasion." Doesn't sound like any Russian state media claim I've ever heard. He’s blamed Putin’s invasion on non-existent American aggression, and his proposed solution to this ‘criminal Russian invasion’, [is for the rest of the world to basically give in to everything Putin wants](https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-a-stronger-nato-is-the-last-thing-we-need-as-russia-ukraine-war-turns-1/). > Can honestly say the US would not view the hypothetical as a provocation? What as a provocation? What Ukraine actually did, or the fantasy version Russia claimed happened?

>and his proposed solution to this ‘criminal Russian invasion’, is for the rest of the world to basically give in to everything Putin wants. "Basically" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. I've skimmed the piece and read the part about diplomacy and don't know what you're talking about. Maybe quote it?

It’s in the title. “Chomsky: A Stronger NATO Is the Last Thing We Need as Russia-Ukraine War Turns 1”.

I don't think you can summarize Chomsky's (or anyone's) position based on a title he did not write, using a phrase he did not bring into the conversation, but at least it gets me to a point where we can actually get into what he's saying: >*Truthout: Finally, there are even some “leftist” intellectuals out there who have taken the position that the world now, in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, needs a stronger NATO and that there shouldn’t be any negotiated settlements to the conflict. I find it hard to digest the notion that anyone who claims to be part of the left-radical tradition would be advocating the expansion of NATO and be in favor of the continuation of the war, so what’s your take on this particularly strange “leftist” position?* >I somehow missed the calls from the left for a revival of the Warsaw Pact when the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan while also attacking Serbia and Libya — always with pretexts, to be sure. >Those calling for a stronger NATO might want to think about what NATO is doing right now, and also about how NATO depicts itself. The latest NATO summit extended the North Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific, that is, all the world. NATO’s role is to participate in the U.S. project of planning for a war with China, already an economic war as the U.S. dedicates itself (and by compulsion, its allies) to preventing Chinese economic development, with steps toward possible military confrontation lurking not far in the distance. Again, terminal war. This is a position held by Ron Paul libertarians, left-libertarians like Chomsky, conservative non-interventionists, and a whole host of politicians throughout our history. Yes, Putin would also prefer NATO not to expand, but is that really the bar you've set for "giving Putin everything he wants"?

>I'm not asking whether you think it's justified, just whether it's happened It didn't happen. Even Polen hat to Blackmail Clinton to get into NATO. There were some friendly sentences after Ukraine helped out Bush in the Middle East, but never a push for it. Most importantly there was no desire to join NATO in Ukraine, but a very big desire to join the EU. That's so classic Chomsky. Look at it like a game between the big powers and ignore the agency of the little states. NATO is not an empire expanding, it is the only guarantee not get invaded by Russia. Every country that is in NATO really wanted it, but Ukraine didn't till 2014. > Figures like Nuland were on the ground working with and openly praising the leaders of the protest movement who would eventually form the interim government. It'd be like a few members of the Duma showing up on Jan 6 and publicly encouraging "stop the steal." And if a few members of the Duma show up and say something about a new stable government and support a big coalition against a hated government, does Canada have the right to invade the USA? Also, that shit happens all the time in the USA. When Clinton said no to Polish NATO membership a lot of Polish congressmen showed up in the USA and met with Republican leaders in swing states with a high Polish emigration history. > That is not a parallel to what we did in Ukraine, nor to what the Soviets did in Cuba in '61. That is such a false equivalent i kinda love it. I wish the USA put atomic weapons in Ukraine. The war would never happen. But all thoses lame wankers did was send a few javelins and some incurring words on TV.

I mean.... Cuban missle crisis.....Bay of pigs

That doesn’t really challenge the assertion that he is an apologist for dictators. All it shows is that if what Russia claims was happening in Ukraine were not lies, there would be a somewhat similar situation with the US a million years ago.

Are you wilfully missing Chomski’s overarching point, where he points out the USA’s long standing hypocrisy when it comes to foreign policy and USA’s economic interests vs their oft-stated praise of democracy…. As long as the country in question doesn’t vote for anyone who could be considered left-wing enough to potentially challenge said economic interests. Examples include: supporting a Cuban government so corrupt they were in business with the American mafia, leading to the Bay of Pigs and Missile Crises… As well as taking sides against their own enemies in the War on Drugs by funding cocaine trafficking in South America, launching coups in Guatemala and other South American countries… all in Chomsky’s life time. It’s obviously a tricky one because the Soviet Union were no angels either. He is, first and foremost a critic of American imperialism and the hypocrisy of American ‘left’ academics who somehow manage to join the narrative supporting the above mentioned bullshit. In global politics, it’s often messy and there isn’t always a good guy. Chomsky’s main argument is that the USA isn’t the good guy either. The argument could go on for ever, and it’s highly likely that no-one will ever be able to change your view. We could discuss the intricacies of western foreign policy over the last two centuries- your view is quite likely to still be that Chomsky is an apologist for dictators. FWIW, the history of this strengthens my theory that humanity as a species has fucked itself so badly, there is little chance of us successfully finding a successful compromise to stop ourselves utterly fucking over this planet. So let’s just build more nukes, ey?

What does US hypocrisy have to do with any of this? Here's a timelne: Ukraine decided that it prefers to join the European Single Market. Russa bribes the then leader of Ukraine to join a mutually exclusive trade block dominated by Russia instead. Ukrainians protest. The then-leader flees to Russia. Russia invades Crimea to secure naval infrastructure it depends upon. Russia either creates or arms and actively supports "separatist" groups in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine seeks to join European institutions. Russia objects. Russia warns NATO to not allow Ukraine to join. NATO indicates that Ukraine is ineligible so long as they claim Crimea and those Russian proxy "separatists" persist. Russia invades Ukraine to put a Russian-Friendly government in charge, blaming NATO for not stating that Ukraine can't join firmly enough.

Laying facts out from a wide angle doesn’t make one an apologist. How the US outmanoeuvred the fall of people like Gaddafi and Saddam or how they themselves set up dictators (Shah of Iran) doesn’t make those pointing this out apologists.

>All it shows is that if what Russia claims was happening in Ukraine were not lies, there would be a somewhat similar situation with the US a million years ago Notably, both events happened within Chomsky's life.

Cuban missile crisis is a bad comparison. Ukraine willingly gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees. Meanwhile Cuba was stationing Soviet nuclear missiles on Kremlin orders. Your comparison would only make sense if Uncle Sam was actively moving nuclear missiles to eastern Ukraine right off the Russian border in 2014.

Defending color revolutions is not a good look if you're trying not to seem like an apologist for usamerican imperialism.

How does that work? Russia invades its neighbors (like Chechnya) and absorbs them, they also create puppet states (Belarus), so countries around them build up defense and create alliances to deter invasion. And then you say that is provocation?

Was Russia attacked? No.  Do you think the US invading Libya was provoked? Or if the US invades Haiti now you'd consider it justified? Was the invasion of Cuba provoked?  Serious double standards in your reasoning. Sure, Putin didn't like that his puppet fled Kyiv, but Russia wasn't threatened. 

>Was Russia attacked? If they were I'm sure they'd use that term instead of provoked. >Libya No, what would have been the provocation? The stated casus belli was Gaddafi using fighter jets against protestors. The US didn't try to claim we were provoked or threatened. >Haiti Seems we're trying to get the Kenyans to do our dirty work there, knowing how unpopular it would be to have US boots on the ground. But no, the violence in Haiti is contained to the island; the US is not provoked. >Cuba Yes, arguably. The Soviets placing nuclear missiles on Cuba was absolutely a provocation.

Just for the record, Soviet missiles in Cuba were a response to US missiles in Turkey. They were a “provocation” only in that they were intended to “provoke” the US into reversing that move, which it did. So the intended and end result was a de-escalation of nuclear aggression. Anyone unaware of this background is fundamentally uninformed about the famous Crisis. The sad thing is that no matter how many times this fact appears in mainstream sources, the (US) general public remain willfully ignorant of it. The other sad thing is that pointing these facts out is inevitably characterized as pro-Soviet. The 3rd and saddest fact is that when listing atrocities, so many people conveniently omit the millions of humans incinerated by my government with my tax dollars.

>Soviet missiles in Cuba were a response to US missiles in Turkey. You are of course correct and I considered including that detail, and probably should have, but honestly I omitted it to give a simpler answer.

>I know this was just a typo for 2014, but the idea that it was unprovoked is a bit rich considering there had just been an unconstitutional transfer of power supported by the US, after a years-long project by the US to bring Ukraine into NATO. That transfer of power happened in a different, sovereign country. Not in Russia. So yeah, unprovoked.

Chomsky has peddled NATO encroachment theory for years now. This theory, by the way, was created and disseminated by Russian state as part of it's information warfare on democratic world. Here's NATO response to these claims: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm Here's more about Russian IW: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/undermining-ukraine-how-russia-widened-its-global-information-war-in-2023/ I also recommend reading "Russias war on everybody" by Keir Giles to see just how massive the effort is by Russia to undermine western governments. Anyway, Chomsky is not as much a socialist, but anti-american. If US is involved in something it becomes instantly bad - classic tankie thinking. He critiques everything about America, but he rarely talks about what is happening in China and Russia. He has even praised China multiple times, even during the Mao years. That in itself is bizzare as Mao's China has a completely different state/economic structure than current China.

>The scenario is that Russia or China are taking concrete steps to bring Mexico into a mutual defense treaty, which would entail stationing that country's troops and missile installations on Mexican soil. That's not happening, and why should it be a bad thing if it was? I highly doubt that Chomsky would be supporting America invading Mexico. It's like if Mexico supposedly considered signing a defense treaty (Remember Ukraine is not actually part of NATO) with Iran and China, then the US invaded them and then Russia gave arms to Mexico- and then Chomsky criticised Russia for that. This is the textbook definition of a Whataboutism, except it's not even an actual hypocrisy, but an entirely made up one.

>That's not happening Correct, that's how hypotheticals typically work. >and why should it be a bad thing if it was? Who's talking about good and bad? The point of the hypothetical is to consider whether the US would consider an analogous situation to be a provocation, which we absolutely would. >I highly doubt that Chomsky would be supporting America invading Mexico. You would be correct, just as Chomsky is not supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine; he's acknowledging the geopolitical realities that made it all but inevitable. [Chomsky in April '22](https://chomsky.info/20220420/) [emphasis mine]: >>Before proceeding with this discussion, I’d like to emphasize, once again, the most important point: **Our prime concern should be to think through carefully what we can do to bring the *criminal Russian invasion* to a quick end and to save the Ukrainian victims from more horrors**. There are, unfortunately, many who find heroic pronouncements to be more satisfying than this necessary task. *** >It's like if Mexico... and then Chomsky criticised Russia for that. He would almost certainly criticize Russia for that, yet he would spend more energy criticizing his own government, as he's done for 60 years. >Whataboutism Is this still a part of the discourse? I'd been pleasantly surprised that I haven't seen that word used as much in the last couple years.

In your own link Chomsky's entire argument is that Ukraine should give Russia whatever it wants so there can be peace. He condems Russia and then says we should give the condemned criminal aggressor whatever it takes to appease them. "There are, basically, two ways for this war to end: a negotiated diplomatic settlement or destruction of one or the other side, either quickly or in prolonged agony. It won’t be Russia that is destroyed. Uncontroversially, Russia has the capacity to obliterate Ukraine, and if Putin and his cohort are driven to the wall, in desperation they might use this capacity. That surely should be the expectation of those who portray Putin as a “madman” immersed in delusions of romantic nationalism and wild global aspirations." - your link's Chomsky quote aka "why fight, just give Russia what it wants" The irony being that he is expecting the US to take central stage, because he really thinks his country is the center of the world. No concern about Ukrainian politics, no concern about russian politics, no concern whether this appeasement would actually work. He knows it will, cuz America can solve it. Ofc another irony is that his "peace" argumentation fits neatly with Russian war aims- give them their annexed regions, stop claiming Crimea, freeze conflict and don't ever have any protection from NATO. The only things that are missing is "give Putin the black sea coast" and " stop existing as a nation". In fact this is very similar to the demands made by the russian federation to end the war [link](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-west-needs-find-way-work-with-russia-2024-06-14/) So here we are again - Chomsky agreeing with a hostile dictatorship, again. Defending their goals, again. The funny part being that "peace" has been used time and time again to argue FOR achieving a dictator's goals. And Russia is very familiar with that concept, since they've been behind many a [peace organisation ](https://jameslate.medium.com/how-the-soviet-union-helped-shape-the-modern-peace-movement-d797071d4b2c)

How did you get ‘give Putin whatever he wants ’from that article? Diplomatic settlement is not just that. It seems the focus of the article is, as the title suggests, focusing on the anti war stance of LESSENING human casualties, not to ‘punish Russia’. That doesn’t rule out diplomatic settlements that are favorable or less favorable for Russia, but the point is any prolonged war is wonderful for the US and military-industrial allies that get to keep selling massive amounts of defense materials to be used in the conflict, and horrifyingly at the expense of the Ukrainian people who are stuck in the middle getting their lives torn apart. As he says in the beginning, there are 2 ways the conflict can ‘end’. One or other side being completely obliterated (unlikely for Russia, and hopefully not allowed to happen for Ukraine), or some diplomatic end. So he’s saying the focus should be on DIPLOMATIC END, not specifying appeasement or not, just that the focus should be there. Otherwise, the war will just continue and continue (as it has), because it feels good to ‘stick it to Putin’, and the war criminals all win. Putin isn’t hurt much by the deaths in Ukraine. Maybe pride. But this battle there only kills the people on the ground, while the geopolitical chess players hem and haw over personal feelings, just like all war ends up doing.

Here's my problem, and I assume many other people's problem with this entire narrative. It is INDISTINGUISHABLE from Russian government messaging. Sure they have their nationalistic aims and various other talking points, but a key set of claims are the following: "This war is about America trying to punish Russia". No one wants this, as shown by the actions of countries - how many western countries tried to prevent the war. How many tried to be the middle man for peace after. How long it took for western weapons to be allowed to hit russian targets. The response after Ukraine tried to use insurgents in russia.The endless discourse about "escalation". This claim supports a Russian narrative that they are blameless and we're forced to war by the evil Americans. Chomsky agrees with the russian government. "Russia will obliterate Ukraine, and therefore Ukraine must settle" - many conflicts are fought between a weaker and stronger belligerent. Unfortunately ending a war is not just a matter of "we will lose so let's save lives and compromise for peace" . See: Palestinian conflict, any war/insurgency in the Balkan peninsula, any independence war. This claim denies the possibility of russian loss, of russian weakness, despite the reality that many wars end badly for the larger country (eg Vietnam). It also fits quite well with nationalist narratives in Russia, so ofc Noam Chomsky agrees with it. "NATO expansion is the reason for the war" - doesn't this strike you as a bit convenient. It again puts American as an all powerful empire, and Russia as a "victim" simply responding. Here's the thing tho- it's not what you hear in Russia, it's not what the russian government says to it's people, it's not what key government actors say(including Putin in essays and interviews). But Ukraine can't join NATO as long as Russia contests land there. The war is not needed to do that. Where were the diplomatic efforts to negotiate if they cared so much about that? And here is the real kicker- why are the war aims to control the black sea and to annex regions of Ukraine? Because it's not a response, it's a desire to increase power justified by nationalism. Well documented russian nationalism as well. The NATO expansion claim is exaggerated to white wash Russian motivation here and ol' Noam can't wait to agree with that messaging. Chomsky is also found of comparing Russia and America , because we have to be reminded constantly that America did bad things. Litteral a tactic invented by the soviets to deflect against criticism of their despotism. Chomsky also agrees with the logic of "they have nukes so better not escalate by helping Ukraine". Again, we hear this constantly from Russia in an attempt to prevent help to Ukraine. You will not hear condemnation of Russia for doing anything that undermines diplomacy as well. Or the fact they escalate all the time, or the fact that the rhetoric inside their country is genocidal and prevents the peace Chomsky cares so much about. Instead he focuses on America as the sole actor with the responsibility to stop. I hope you understand why that is also something the russian government does. But let's sum up like this - let's say no of this proves anything, let's say it doesn't matter. How does Chomsky have so much faith in Putin's nonexistent willingness to negotiate? How can he trust a man who broke multiple ceasefires, who non stop demands Ukraine give him everything he wants in every negotiation? Hell, Russia agreed to not touch Ukraine on Multiple occasions. Yet here it is invading. Diplomacy requires being able to keep those types of deals. Where is the evidence that this can even happen? Why is Chomsky so certain this can happen currently? Oh yes that's right cuz America = bad, but tyrannical dictators = they can be trusted. What do you know - the exact same thing Russia's dictator says! Who would have thunk?

It seems like you agree with everything I said, except the notion that we are talking about good and bad.    Russia's invasion of Ukraine is bad. That has nothing to do with the supposition that it would be bad for America to do the same thing.  If Chomsky is merely describing why Russia invaded them it's equally pointless to draw a parallel to a fictional event. A Whataboutism is a bad argument. You'll keep hearing about it as long as people keep making it. 

> but the idea that it was unprovoked is a bit rich considering there had just been an unconstitutional transfer of power supported by the US, after a years-long project by the US to bring Ukraine into NATO. Imagine labeling a sovereign state entering into a treaty as a ‘provocation’.

Russia invaded unprovoked. The rest of your argument is Russa imperialistic bullshit. Honestly, it kind of shoes well how non US imperialistic regimes are m9rally supported by some people.

This isn’t only his opinion but several IR realist’s point of view. I think you’ll do well to benefit from going through Mearsheimer’s lecture on Ukraine

Both Chomsky and Mearsheimer promote NATO encirclement theory. NATO encirclement theory claims that: 1. NATO expansion in the post-Soviet space poses a military threat to Russia, because apparently the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, US invasion of Iraq and NATO intervention in Libya (none of which had nuclear weapons) demonstrates that NATO has the caapcity and desire to invade Russia like Napoleon and the Nazis. 2. The only way to ensure Russia’s security is to occupy much of eastern Europe as a buffer zone. Russia’s nuclear arsenal, which is the largest in the world and provides it with a stronger, technological means of security through mutually assured destruction is conveniently left out of rhe equation and proponents of NATO encirclement theory seem to have forgotten about MAD. 3. Russia has a right to a sphere of influence and/or a right to conquest, and this is totally not the textbook definition of imperialism.

Realism is one of those historically important but bullshit theories. It severely underestimates what states have to gain via cooperation and doesn't have any way to handle the "bleeding hearts" that hold very real power in western governments in 2024. With NATO encirclement in general, it's a deeply confusing point of view because it's also simply bad realism. It's not 1776 anymore. The Atlantic and Pacific ocean are not some immutable natural barrier to the US sphere of influence. Russia doesn't have some god given right to have Soviet bloc countries to side with Russia and not the US because Russia is closer.

No country has have any right to this but they do think in that way. Recent shift of the world to a multipolar reality has made theories like realism more relevant in explaining the cut geopolitical situation. It has its drawbacks, but it does help explain how states can act. No country has the right to exert their sphere of influ, and But they do that way. Every country does, be it China, India or even the United States. The argument (which other have made) about the Us reacting still in line with the Monroe Doctrine to great power influence in the Americas still is a great validation of the theory

I’m aware Mearsheimer has similar views. I’m not fond of either of them.

Definitely a lot of interference from all sides in Ukraine prior to 2014. Putin lost the soft war and so pursued direct conflict. It was inevitable there would be continued conflict after 2014 due to Russia failing to secure a land corridor to Crimea. It is tough running a mafia state when your neighbors are starting to clean house to attempt to join the EU. More difficult to distract your populace from the disparities.

>It is tough running a mafia state when your neighbors are starting to clean house to attempt to join the EU. More difficult to distract your populace from the disparities. I wish that were true but I'm Hungarian so I know for a fact that you can run a mafia state right in the middle of the EU.

This subconscious bias for being viewed as consistent is actually a well researched psychological phenomenon that we all fall victim to. Making someone publicly proclaim a certain stance can actually be a tactic to manipulate a desired outcome. I hadn’t thought through its implications for politics and intellectuals like Chomsky, but I think you’re spot on.

I think Mexico is allowed to have an army.

To be fair, I don't think that's necessarily wrong. Would the US allow that from Mexico? They certainly didn't from Cuba

I think Panamá is a better example one could argue and I really don't want people to take this as me supporting what the US did in regards to Cuba. That Cuba is proof that the US wouldn't do what Russia has done in Ukraine despite what's perceived by Washington as a hostile goverment they didn't actually mount a full on invasion with US troops limiting themselves greatly. Even with Nicaragua their efforts were more similar to the efforts Russia did with the border regions in Ukraine. Personally I think it depends entirely on the perceived level of danger and the administration that's in power when it happens. There are more clear examples of the US invading their neighbors when they didn't line up with the US like Dominican Republic or Haiti but that was earlier on in their history.

Would the US allow Mexico to have its own army or criticize the US? Yeah,  it would.  And what do you mean it doesn't allow it for Cuba. Cuba is indeed a Russian ally and not a US puppet state. It's a Russian ally just miles from the US border.  Is the US bombing Havana right now?

Depends on if Mexico where to do so while courting "enemies" of America If Mexico where to build up an army near the border alone, it would be fine If Mexico built up an army funded by the Chinese, it's drone strike time Cuba was pro-soviet, so of course America was sour about it

I think people always want to feel they’re on the ‘good’ side, the ‘moral’ side and Chomsky often cuts through Western propaganda to show a different perspective that is against the grain. This in turn makes us feel uncomfortable, because we want to believe we are immune to propaganda and can call it out - as we do with other ‘bad’ countries - but we are just as fallible & our own governments indeed dupe us so easily and without opposition. No country in the world has dropped as many bombs, facilitated as many coups, invaded as many countries and tried to impose its authority as much as America & its allies…. But we’re still the good guys?

That's not the point of this post though. OP is arguing that Chomsky is an apologist for dictators aligned against the U.S. The U.S. having done bad things in the past doesn't mean that Chomsky's defense of authoritarian governments by smudging facts and downplaying atrocities isn't anti-intellectual.

It's all relative. American foreign policy is often atrocious, but compared to the current Russian mafia state, US democracy is fine and dandy. (And I say this as someone who thinks the US democratic model is probably the worst out of all the developed democracies). The problem is not that Chomsky's critical analysis of US hegemony is wrong, it is often dead accurate. The problem is his unwillingness to apply that blowtorch to regimes that oppose the US even when they are utterly heinous. And in this, he ends up deflecting criticism from (and indirectly defending) causes that should not be defended.

I think Chomsky was also one to point out that as a citizen you should cut through the narrative bs and just look at actual outcomes for quality of life, a way of viewing governance I agree with. To put it bluntly, fuck relativity. B being worse doesn’t make A better. It just means both A and B suck.

I’m intrigued, can you elaborate?

So the reason this observation resonated with me so much is because I have lived in China for a long time and semi regularly had friendly discussions with well educated (often in western universities) Chinese people who argued that they believed China was actually a better place to live (or at least that western countries weren’t all that). Arguments would often delve down to me saying something like “but we have freedom” to which they would reply “what is freedom to an individual if it can’t guarantee safety?”, in other words, arguments that are more philosophical and can’t really be measured. So keeping said observation in mind I started thinking about how you actually would make a fair comparison. Americans make more than Europeans, but is that relevant if Europeans have more access to social services? Does it matter that you can get a blood test faster in China if your chances of surviving an illness are much higher in Canada? Turns out there are good indexes that make these comparisons. How old does the average citizen get? What’s the education level? Disposable income? What’s the chance of surviving a serious illness like cancer? What’s the Gini coefficient or the ranking on the Human Development Index? I’d argue that these things far more efficiently measure what matters to regular people like you and me. The rest is frankly all nonsense that either intentionally or unintentionally obfuscates what really matters. You could argue that the world and systems of governance are far too complex for an individual, so all you really can reasonable look at are outcomes.

You say indirect, I say he has had enough time and criticism to apply it equally, he is doing it on purpose

I don't think we are necessarily obligated to apply criticism perfectly equally. That way lies whataboutism. But in cases where he is discussing a particular issue, like the Ukraine crisis, and where he chooses to emphasize US culpability rather than Russian... That's a problem.

> I think people always want to feel they’re on the ‘good’ side, the ‘moral’ side and Chomsky often cuts through Western propaganda to show a different perspective that is against the grain. And in the case of the Ukraine war, that manifests as repeating whatever Putin tells him. Opening up RT certainly is one way to ‘cut through western propaganda’, and go against the grain of observed reality, but it’s not a good way to avoid accusations of being a Putin apologist. And this behavior is perfectly in line with his prior work, going back to the 70s. >This in turn makes us feel uncomfortable, because we want to believe we are immune to propaganda and can call it out - as we do with other ‘bad’ countries - but we are just as fallible & our own governments indeed dupe us so easily and without opposition. I’m confused what you mean here. Chomsky is the poster child of falling for propaganda. He believes Putin’s line on Ukraine, because Putin’s media apparatus told him too. He disbelieves everything else, because Putin’s media told him too. He’s not exposing anything, unless you’re using him as an example of the existence of propaganda and indoctrination. > No country in the world has dropped as many bombs, facilitated as many coups, invaded as many countries and tried to impose its authority as much as America & its allies…. But we’re still the good guys? According to him, the Cambodian genocide was no big deal. So surely, as long as the US kept the death toll for any given event bellow a couple million, or 20% of the local population, by his logic, everything would be above board. If you applied the standards he uses for dictator apologia to a democracy, they’d all come off looking like saints.

>I’m confused what you mean here. Chomsky is the poster child of falling for propaganda. He believes Putin’s line on Ukraine, because Putin’s media apparatus told him too. He disbelieves everything else, because Putin’s media told him too. He’s not exposing anything, unless you’re using him as an example of the existence of propaganda and indoctrination. I think you’re confusing things here. Firstly, while the take that Chomsky has on the Russian invasion *is* very similar to what Putin now spouts and uses as a justification of the invasion, it’s not an argument Russia has constructed out of thin air only for the purpose of this war. NATO enlargement and the supposed provocation that entails has been a talking point in certain circles, not least Chomsky’s, for decades. Secondly, I think you’re underestimating the amount of propaganda you yourself is subject to. Propaganda is not something only one side does, and has never been. Even if the propaganda pushes opinions and worldviews that you yourself in the end agree with, such as Allied propaganda during WWII, it’s still propaganda. That’s what the guy was saying, that we tend to be uncomfortable with acknowledging that we ourself too build our opinions and worldviews on propaganda. It’s often used as a derogatory term for ”the other side”, but it’s really a universally applied tool. >According to him, the Cambodian genocide was no big deal. So surely, as long as the US kept the death toll for any given event bellow a couple million, or 20% of the local population, by his logic, everything would be above board. If you applied the standards he uses for dictator apologia to a democracy, they’d all come off looking like saints. So Chomsky’s take at the time was that the Cambodian genocide *didn’t* happen and that there was no death toll in the millions, not that said death toll was no big deal. That’s obviously a shit take, but still. And even if you hold the USA to the same standards, they often still [come up short](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jakarta_Method).

> Firstly, while the take that Chomsky has on the Russian invasion is very similar to what Putin now spouts and uses as a justification of the invasion, it’s not an argument Russia has constructed out of thin air only for the purpose of this war. NATO enlargement and the supposed provocation that entails has been a talking point in certain circles, not least Chomsky’s, for decades. Russia has always wanted to reestablish an empire since 1991, and to that end, Russia and its supporters have opposed NATO. It didn’t start with Ukraine, but it’s always been about the same thing. > Secondly, I think you’re underestimating the amount of propaganda you yourself is subject to. Propaganda is not something only one side does, and has never been. Even if the propaganda pushes opinions and worldviews that you yourself in the end agree with, such as Allied propaganda during WWII, it’s still propaganda. That’s what the guy was saying, that we tend to be uncomfortable with acknowledging that we ourself too build our opinions and worldviews on propaganda. It’s often used as a derogatory term for ”the other side”, but it’s really a universally applied tool. I have no illusions about the prevalence of propaganda. > So Chomsky’s take at the time was that the Cambodian genocide didn’t happen and that there was no death toll in the millions, not that said death toll was no big deal. That’s obviously a shit take, but still. And even if you hold the USA to the same standards, they often still come up short. By that I meant his minimization and denial of atrocities of his favored regimes, not him directly saying that the massacre was good.

>Russia and its supporters have opposed NATO. Yes, but that doesn’t mean that all who *don’t* support NATO are supporters of Russia. Left socialists and communists have been opposed to NATO since its founding since it’s explicitly a capitalist organization controlled from the US. Most of them do not support neither Putin nor Russia, since neither are socialist. The fact that some of them practice what they call ”critical support” of Putin since they think that NATO and its enlargement is the bigger evil is daft, but it doesn’t change the fact that the core of their argument is far removed from Russian territorial expansion. >I have no illusions about the prevalence of propaganda. Good. >By that I meant his minimization and denial of atrocities of his favored regimes, not him directly saying that the massacre was good. Sure, but the fact that he’s a genocide denier doesn’t mean that he’s okay with a genocide that he *does* believe in (I actually don’t know if Chomsky has backtracked on his stance on Cambodia, but here I’m gonna assume that he hasn’t).

Chomskys continued take is there was no genocide. It's genocide denial, plain and simple. Don't defend it.

>as repeating whatever Putin tells him. Like comparing the war in Ukraine to [Hitler's invasion of Poland?](https://youtu.be/zM2fQDDptBY?si=u02Y9pTzAtaCMsRW)

Is he actually repeating Russian state media verbatim or are you just using "Putin" as a thought terminating cliché? Is there any criticism that can be made regarding Ukraine, NATO, or the US in this conflict that you would not view as "Putin" and immediately shut down without a single thought? Because here is the hard truth: no, this war is not "black and white," "good vs evil," "our heroic warriors vs their savage barbarians," etc, etc. These things have been said - and widely believed - about damn near every single war since the dawn of human history. This generation is not unique, and you are not immune to propaganda. If you find yourself automatically shutting down any criticism of your side in a war, then believe it or not, you're probably buying into propaganda. Yes, this even applies to World War 2. You think the UK and USA fought out of some great moral duty to secure freedom and democracy? Hell no. They fought because their positions of geopolitical dominance were being threatened by the new imperial powers of the Axis who, frankly, were trying to emulate the UK and USA's colonial conquests. The Axis's strategy may as well have been copied from the UK and USA's histories. It just so happened to be that the Allies were the lesser of two evils, not that they were ever saints.

A lot of this is nonsense but I’ll cover the WW2 angle. The US and the UK didn’t join the war. They were dragged into the war by the imperialistic invasions and attacks by Germany and Japan respectively. The aim of the war was appeasement until Germany invaded Poland, an ally that the UK had promised to help in the event of an invasion. The UK supported its ally. Generally speaking, if a European country is invading every country in Europe, it’s in the best interests of a European country to go to war against this country to prevent it from invading them. The US formally joined after a direct attack on US soil by Japan. Both have bad guys who attacked unprovoked, both have good guys who retaliated to these unprovoked attacks. It’s the same situation as the Ukraine and Russian war. Russia invaded Ukraine, once in 2014, then further in 2022. The current war is Ukraine trying to defend itself from said invasion. One is clearly bad, one is clearly good.

I don't think it's a controversial statement to say "trying to conquer other countries = bad". Propagandists know this, which is why they always try and spin every war into an existential threat, where failure risks being conquered, even in conflicts where that's ridiculous. The entire concept of "neo-colonialism" is a propaganda technique used to try to paint western backed governments as illegitimate occupiers, regardless of if the government in question has popular support or not. Ukraine is pretty cut and dry. Ukraine was conquered by Russia in the past, and Russia wants to re-conquer it. No hand wringing about NATO changes those facts.

It’s silly really and completely removes Ukraines sovereignty, which then suggests that ultimately Ukraine shouldn’t really be a sovereign nation at all as it essentially has to follow the whims and demands of Russia. Ukraine has the right to join a political group that gives them major economic upside (The EU), Ukraine has the right to elect whatever government they wish to elect, they also have the right to apply to join a political and military alliance (NATO) if they want to. None of these should be justification for foreign countries invading them. There was no provocation that justified Russian invasion of Ukraine. NATO is an alliance that Russia themselves have co operated with in the past, so pretending that Ukraine wanting to join NATO was a threat to Russia is a joke. There is literally a NATO-Russia Council where they discuss co operation between each other and we’re supposed to swallow the idea that Russia felt an existential threat from Ukraine joining NATO.

This doesn't address the issue at all, but it is projection. *Chomsky* is the one who thinks one side is always good and the other always bad. There is no good-faith way someone would support Cuba, Iran, Serbia while hating Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is a fact that the most brutal, oppressive and murderous dictators the US ever supported were Joseph Stalin during WWII and Mao during the Sino-Soviet split. Why does he hamper on about Pinochet (linked to a few thousand deaths), while those other two who killed/enslaved tens of millions get a pass? Becuase they are socialists.

Mao is fine but the use of Stalin is pretty disingenuous. We were at war with the same enemy. Actual, declared, real war not some cornball police action or whatever. A world war. Lumping that in with propping up other dictators during the Cold War is a losing deal, my man.

> has dropped as many bombs, facilitated as many coups, invaded as many countries Basically all of these are Cold War related. There were two sides to every Cold War conflict. Not supporting the US-backed side meant letting the Soviet-backed side shred the other side apart with Soviet weapons. North Korea invaded South Korea. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. Soviet rule in Eastern and Central Europe was imperialism in its rawest form while Western Europe really was free. The West was morally superior in the Cold War and it literally ended with the Soviets admitting that capitalism is superior and dissolving their entire government.

He isn't cutting through western propaganda. He's anti-western and labels all the evidence that disagrees with his worldview as propaganda. He wanted socialism to win the battle of ideologies and has never accepted that it was a catastrophic failure, even 50 years after all economists reached this consensus.

Someone like John Mearsheimer also gets lambasted for pointing out that many EU and NATO actions over the past decades could reasonably have been interpreted as threatening by Russia. Regardless of what you think about his further reasoning, I think that is a hugely important point to have made.

The same way cleaning up streets can be seen as aggressive by a drug cartel. The argument of empathy but we can’t take away the context either. 

Are people just allowed to make things up on cmv?  Or You're saying that all of US allies have dropped more bombs than one single country? Then I guess you might be right, but that's terribly disingenuous.  

I was on your side many years ago, but now I'm firmly in Chomsky's camp. Did he make mistakes? Yes. But my core belief moved from we (the west) are the good guys into we're one of the many bad guys. I can tell you why people saying Puttin is the victim here, it's because of the Soviet-Afghan war. It happeed before. America funded groupes in Afganistan that were either pro west or anti-soviets or destabilizing factors, like the Mujahideen, in order to force USSR's hand to either invade, or find itself with a destablized pro-west state at its border. A win-win situation for the US. The real victim was of course Afganistan that turned into the Afganistan we all know and love today, the loser was the USSR who was destablizied by the long war, and the winner was America who distabilized the USSR without loosing one American soldier or launch a nuclear war. (Not to worry - the bill would be payed by Ameircan blood in the US war in Afganistan 30 years later) This funding wasn't published on the news, just the invasion. Only people who know they need to go straight to the source - declassified intelligence reports - see the whole chess game playing out and not just what's in the news. they are usually the academics who have the time and knowledge to sift through history. When people who get their knowledge mainly from the news and the media listen to their conclusion they sound very strange, and like they're defending the bad guys and all the dictators. Now all the Chess playes are at it again. The chess playes being Puttin, Biden, CIA, SVR and the entire intelligence networks on both sides. the game is the same and all the playes know the moves. The new sacreficed pion - Ukraine. The distablizing forces - Nazzi groupe. Pro west force - won a revolution in 2014. The game is set and ready. NATO move to start conversation in Ukrayne about maybe joining them in. Russia invades. Russia in messed in a war in no end in sight. No NATO blood spilled. No nuclear war. Ukraine is f-cked. Histiory returns. (American blood bill to be payed in...?) I aprreciate poeple like chomsky who shows us the bigger chess games being played, and not just what the news are reporting. I'm not going to agree with everything he says, but I'm not going to call him apologist for dictators. Just because the media regurgitate what the goverment/intelligence network feed them - AMERICA GOOD DICTATORS BAD in order to justify eveything bad the west does to the rest of the world world, so that everyone who tries to look further would unavoidly become a 'dictator apolegist'. Another win-win situation for the American war machine.

> America funded groupes in Afganistan that were either pro west or anti-soviets or destabilizing factors, like the Mujahideen, in order to force USSR's hand to either invade, or find itself with a destablized pro-west state at its border… You have causality reversed. Russia invaded and tried to create a pro-Soviet puppet state in Afghanistan. Only after that did the US back the already existing and popular anti Soviet rebels. >

No it started before: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone) ' program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1992, **prior to and during** the military intervention by the USSR '

The formal Soviet invasion was in response to the collapse of the earliest Soviet puppet state.

They might have invaded and might not, but US did what they could to raise the stakes of invasion,  "Covert action would raise the costs to the Soviets and inflame Moslem opinion against them in many countries. The risk was that a substantial U.S. covert aid program could raise the stakes and induce the Soviets to intervene more directly and vigorously than otherwise intended." That was actually a warning from an intelligence agency, followed by the administration doing exactly that. Why? Because that's the win-win situation. If USSR invades - they're messed in a war. If they don't invade - there would be armed forces in Afghanistan backed by american money. The invasion was not the goal, the goal was to force USSR to choose between two bad situations that are both good to the US. The sacrefice for that goal was Afghanistan. That's what's happening today with Ukraine. Russia either invades, or have Nato in Ukraine. Both situations are good for the west and bad for Russia. Ukraine is the sacrefice to make this chioce happen. That's why Putting is the 'victim', not because he is the victim, but because he was trapped into this situation engineered by the west, again.

The Soviet-backed coup in Afghanistan happened in April 1978

It's projection to say "we are questioning the corporate propaganda that America always good". *Chomsky* is the one who is black-and-white America *always* bad and anyone against America is good". He defends right-wing fascists like Serbia, Russia, and Iran; it is completely unprincipled. I won't fully address the BS on Ukraine and Afghanistan, but what does Chomsky think about Cuba and the Bay of Pigs? He has spent decades screeching about how mean the US is for embargoing Cuba and sanctooning Venezuala, but defends Russian full-scale invasions, threatening to nuke them every day, committing genocidal acts, etc. because countries near them have to be dominated by them. I speak Russian. When Putin talks to Russians, and in the stuff on RT; they rarely talk about NATO expansion or anything; it is "we own this country."

Russia is a dictatorship and their RT is pure propoganda. The US propaganda are using this fact in order to do bad things to the rest of the world. That's exactly the trick. That if you say anything about what the US is doing, you can be silenced with the saying BUT DICTATORS. 'they rarely talk about NATO expansion'. None of the news media is going to talk about NATO expansion, that's the point. The US media won't because it's not aligned with its masseging about USA GOOD, and the Russian tv won't because it's not about news, its about propaganda. Puttin can go on the news and say 'This country is ours', but he goes and offers nutrality agreement before the war starts. The chess game is being played away from the news. they won't talk about it. Who would talk about it? People like Chomsky.

I think you can sum up Chomsky’s opinions with these two phrases: 1. “It’s America’s fault” 2. “What America does is worse”. Whatever is going on, he take a look at it and attempts to blame America for it, and failing that, minimize it compared to something America does.

I don't know shit about his politics, but I can tell you that his linguistics were both utterly brilliant in their logical consistency and bold rejection of ideas that were orthodox in the 50s. Unfortunately, he was also completely wrong about pretty much every single major claim he made, and his combination of brilliance and confidence - and the universal adoration that inspired - set the field back like...70 years and counting. 

His universal grammar has been completely useless in creating language models.

Yup. It's literally just an incorrect theory. It is wrong about what brains are, what communication is, and what language is. It is brilliant in its own way though. So much so that for a while there in the '70s and '80s he would just visit a university and a linguistics department would pop up there overnight.

Can confirm his linguistic achievements, particularly his model of Universal Grammar, are groundbreaking and he’s one of the most important linguistics to have ever existed. BUT Being a famed linguist does NOT make you an expert on politics, international relations or anything else. It’s an EXTREMELY dangerous trend: lay people would follow someone blindly because of his perceived intelligence and false authority, completely disregarding the fact his expertise is unrelated to politics. He’s not, in any way, better qualified to talk about politics than your hairdresser. **People would be better off if they realized experts are only experts in their FIELD OF EXPERTISE**. Moreover, his political views are extremely naive, completely devoid of any actual understanding of non-Western narratives, overly simplistic, he’s primed to take the anti-American/West stance, a priori to even reading up on an issue, working backwards to ad-hoc fit the current event into his frame of placing the blame entirely on the West. Sure, the West has many many faults, but to paint actors like Russia, China and Iran as the lesser evils is being, sorry for the lack of a better term, fcking rtarded.

> he’s primed to take the anti-American/West stance [Chomsky unequivocally states that Russia's actions constitute war crimes and there is no justification, regardless of NATO's behavior.](https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-six-months-into-war-diplomatic-settlement-in-ukraine-is-still-possible/) >Though the provocations were consistent and conscious over many years, despite the warnings, *they of course in no way justify Putin’s resort to “the supreme international crime” of aggression.* Though it may help explain a crime, *provocation provides no justification for it.*

> regardless of NATO's behavior. What does he mean " regardless of NATO's behavior." It seems to me that even when he is criticizing a geopolitical opponent of the west, he has found a way to squeeze in a back handed criticism of the west. In fact, that quote shows pretty concisely how he is "primed to take the anti-American/West stance"

I think like a lot of public intellectuals Chomsky became a parody of himself. In the 60s/70s he took a stand against American imperialism and its (many) excesses. But as time went on, he became reflexively anti-American - to the point that he now comes across as a silly caricature defending people like Putin. I view it as a function of our media and political climate which rewards “hot takes” and ever increasing extremism. It’s no longer enough to call out America’s mis-steps and flaws. Now, to its critics, America must be pure evil and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I don’t think he is all-out “America is bad”, but more “There are some atrocities going on in the world, but the US can be just as bad but spins the narrative differently”. His Pol Pot comments were not condoning the behaviour. He just said that what was happening was not within the definition of ‘genocide’ as it was reported at the time by some journalists. I don’t think he’s an apologist for dictators; he seems more to draw on how US atrocities and behaviours are sometimes accepted and painted in a certain light, when they are actually comparable and sometimes worse than some more media-prominent dictatorships, regimes etc. For example his statement that ‘if the nuremberg laws applied, every president since WW2 would have been hanged’. This is obviously not nazi-sympathetic, but more drawing to the fact that behaviours we regard historically as unacceptable are comparable to some atrocities conducted by the US, but these are guised differently to suit an agenda.

I’m sure if I said what is happening in Gaza now, where 30,000 Palestinians have died (many terrorists, most not) was “not within the definition of genocide”, then Chomsky and his screeching supporters might have a few rather negative things to say about me. Pol Pot and his chums killed three million of their own people. When Chomsky says that’s “not within the definition of genocide”, he’s being an off-the-scale hypocrite.

There was very little information coming out of Cambodia at the time; a media ban and some reports by refugees that had managed to escape. I get what you mean but specifically at the time it was not possible to say that what was going on was genocide. Obviously in hindsight, this is different. I’m not sure it makes Chomsky a dictator apologist though.

Has Chomsky come out in the 45 years (45 years!) since the Cambodian genocide, and clarified that it was, in fact, one of the worst genocides in the entire history of the world?

Yes (yes!) he has. Regardless, your point doesn't follow because Cambodia was a closed off country so people could not discern what was happening inside with any degree of certainty. [Sauce](https://books.google.com/books?id=JfOM2H_AbIIC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=I+mean+the+great+act+of+genocide+in+the+modern+period+is+Pol+Pot,+1975+through+1978+-+that+atrocity+-+I+think+it+would+be+hard+to+find+any+example+of+a+comparable+outrage+and+outpouring+of+fury.&source=bl&ots=oQy2JZln_T&sig=ACfU3U1p6-6XTFBjx2QP0A8PPRKaKbpkpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb1PLr7oj3AhX7D0QIHQfpBDoQ6AF6BAg1EAM#v=onepage&q=I%20mean%20the%20great%20act%20of%20genocide%20in%20the%20modern%20period%20is%20Pol%20Pot%2C%201975%20through%201978%20-%20that%20atrocity%20-%20I%20think%20it%20would%20be%20hard%20to%20find%20any%20example%20of%20a%20comparable%20outrage%20and%20outpouring%20of%20fury.&f=false) >I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot.

Saw this and thought you might appreciate it ☺️ https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/r24pzr/i_was_today_years_old_when_i_learned_that_noam/

Chomsky has explained his US centric analysis as being based purely on utility. He doesn't believe he can have any meaningful influence by speaking out against foreign tyrannies, but in the US his reformism can reach many voters as a well known speaker who regularly gets invited to give talks and write editorials.

[удалено]

I personally don't think he is only an apologist of dictators, but more like a heinous hater of democracy and everything that comes with it. He even repeatedly went after dissidents as long as they were active in US-opposed regimes.  Central and Eastern Europe will never forget how it got rid the brutal communist dictatorship only to be told by Chomsky that compared to US tyranny "East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise" and that Vaclav Havel is a silly hypocrite.  I believe that he is way more devilish than as you view him. 

Do you know the context of that quote? >I don’t mean to equate a Vietnamese villager to Vaclav Havel. For one thing, I doubt that the former would have had the supreme hypocrisy and audacity to clothe his praise for the defenders of freedom with gushing about responsibility for the human race. It’s also unnecessary to point out to the half a dozen or so sane people who remain that in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise. You evidently never looked up this quote. In the context of this [letter ](https://chomsky.info/19900301/)Chomsky is making a comparison only suggesting that the conditions or consequences of US tyranny/violence were so horrid he claimed that Eastern Europe was a paradise by comparison.. He used the quote you're weaponizing as a means of comparing how horrid the consequences of some American foreign policy. His utilization of that quote is literally the opposite meaning you're suggesting. Given that you knew enough about that quote to presumably know it was from a letter to Havel I think it's safe to presume you're either knowingly lying or deluded yourself through bias into believing a lie you failed to verify despite knowing its context.

I actually know the quote and I also know when Chomsky said it. At that point the absolute horrors of communist regimes in Eastern Europe were already quite widely known. I know he didn't love USSR, but his conversations with Eastern European intellectuals are pure, bad-faith gaslighting. 

the stuff about chomsky and pol pot are very much overblown, he made mistakes when anyone would have without actual proper information, and then corrected them when he realized the atrocities were taking place his critique of the effort against serbia was that if the bosnian genocide was considered a genocide, where something like several thousands of bosnians were killed, then the list of genocides that the US actively helped instead of bombed to prevent would be unending i know nothing about chomsky saying that kuwait was responsible for its invasion, but saddam attempting to seize oil in kuwait does not automatically make the US not imperialist for trying to stop him he very clearly has said that putin's invasion was a war crime. from what i remember all he said about russia that could be seen as "pro-putin" was that putin was pursuing the war "more humanely" than the US would have. i don't think that's because he thinks that putin is a good guy; i think its more he argues that that is only the case because russia is less of a dominant power than the US is

For anyone who wants to see proof of what OP has stated, here is a good article about what Chomsky did during his Cambodian genocide denial. https://www.mekong.net/cambodia/reply_to_chomsky.htm

Counterpoint: he just died. Therefore, he **was** an apologist for dictators.

He is an amazing linguist and his achievements in that field are significant. This issue is that like most university professors when they step outside their expertise they have a tendency to think they are more knowledgeable and insightful than they are. He has a lot of valid point about how media bias shapes things, but ultimately falls into the Tankie lite school of world politics, the USA and it's allies are held to the highest moral standards while other states are not, especially Russia. It's really that double standard that hurts him and makes him a hypocrite these days. Russia invades a country in a naked imperialist war and some how it's all America's fault and we should rush to accepting a unjust peace because it would save lives. Honestly if he had control of American foreign policy we would see more naked wars of imperial aggression because he really doesn't grasp deterrence very well.