Steve Diamond writes:
> Jim, it is certainly, I will agree, Chomsky's obsession to
> use an apparently objective critique of the "western media" to make his
> political arguments, but to ignore the politics behind this approach is to reward form over
> substance.
Not being credentialed to do long-distance psychodiagnoses, I wouldn't say that it's Chomsky's "obsession." It's a practice that developed from a long experience with the official US press: during the war against Vietnam, if you remember, the official press simply repeated the lies of the US government -- until the US started losing, undermining its credibility. In many other cases, as with the US invasion of the Dominican Republic (or Panama, or Grenada, or ...), the press never got to disagreeing, of if they did, disagreed about only tactics or strategy, not goals. It should be noted that Chomsky has never had respect for the press of the old USSR and similar US enemies, either.
I must admit that I get a little tired of Chomsky's harping on the US elite's (and the official press) hypocrisy, the contradiction between stated ideals and goals and actual practice. But as a philosopher-friend noted, this is an extremely powerful ethical mode of analysis. (Some argue that Marx used this approach.)
> In your parenthetical ending you come dangerously close to a
> conclusion that I hope is not intended: that the Khmer Rouge's genocidal
> activities is explained by the behavior of the U.S. and Vietnam.
> Nationalist movements in many other countries seem to have
> avoided such extreme behavior and emerged free from colonial and other
> forms of control - South Africa, for example, India, for another.
The US and Vietnam helped create the conditions, just as Italy's situation after WW1 helped create the conditions for the rise of Mussolini. I was providing an (admittedly sketchy) materialist analysis, as part an effort to counteract the common "revolution betrayed" form of analysis, in which various social movements are taken out of historical context and laden with moralistic blame. It's too similar to conspiracy theory, with similar political implications: if "our guys" (led by me, of course) had been in charge of Cambodia after the fall of the Lon Nol regime, everything would have been alright.
JD
