| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| noname | Posted
on 22-Mar-04 05:01 PM
Anarchy and Monarchy 1. I am not an anarchist, but when it comes to the legitimacy of power I cannot agree more to Noam Chomsky and the way he defines the underlining meaning of legitimacy of power to an anarchist. According to Chomsky: "Power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can't prove it, then it should be dismantled. It's not the responsibility of anyone else to show that it's illegitimate. It's illegitimate by assumption, if it's a relation of authority among human beings which places some above others. That's illegitimate by assumption. Unless you can give a strong argument to show that it's right, you've lost." 2. Since all human beings are born equal, each individual should be free to act according to their own will. Bust the sphere of individuality of one individual is limited as it interferes with the individuality of another individual. It is further complicated and complex when spheres of many individuals interact among one another, and the set rules, guidelines and norms become insufficient. Then a referee is required who can decide on behalf of them, and the referee should be acceptable to all of them. Okay, if not acceptable to all, the referee shall be acceptable among the majority! This is the simple logic behind the democracy, or whatever 'cracy' that is. 3. For primordial man, when the concept of individual liberty was not so developed, security and food was most important, and the obvious choice for leader was a strong, powerful and muscular leader. The person was the King, and this is prevalent in many felines even today, where the leader has eventually to leave its place for another powerful leader, not essentially to the oldest of its male offspring. Hence, kingship is a natural product in the stages of the evolution, but the hereditary transfer of power is a historical accident. 4. When primordial man started to create more artificial things than to depend on the limited natural choices, the concept of life became further complex as individual liberty, security, food, and others things got mixed up. So they started looking for not a muscular and powerful leader, but an 'opportunist' leader who could drive interest of their group best in a complex interaction and friction among interests of many other groups. The king started to be considered useful only when the 'opportunist' leaders, and by inference the individuals, did see that by keeping the king they could best forward their interests. Otherwise, king as ruler is illegitimate by assumption! 5. Constitutional monarchy in Nepal is a compromise. As it has been seen in the past, the king cannot be sidelined, let alone dethroned, by whimsical speech, or even by the brutal killing of voiceless citizens. Sometimes back, I had posted in Sajha that the king draws power from four bases: legacy, religion, army and mysticism. The legacy factor may be in question mark in some quarters after the June debacle, and the king himself has put question mark on his religious role by accepting JANATA as JANARDAN in his recent speech. So, the king is powerful because the army is powerful. The army had always quibbles against the democratically elected leaders; a case in point may be the famous speech by PSJB, which was an augury of the later steps of the king. 6. So, choice for the democratic leaders is either go for a protracted war, or work for a compromise with the king and gradually de-link the power base of the king drawn from the army, if the leaders, and by inference the majority of the citizens, think so necessary. 7. The choice for the king is either to transfer the power to legitimate authorities or prove his legitimacy. Why is the king afraid to declare a referendum, or election for the constituent assembly that can give him legitimacy ? 8. To cut a long story short, WHY ARE THE INNOCENTS BEING TORTURED AND KILLED while the culprits are posing for the media ? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 24-Mar-04 07:01 AM
Noname, Excellent thoughts but I disagree. 1. I think Machiavellian Realism is more applicable than any idealism when it comes to politics and running the state. To prove legitimacy the state/ruler has to exercise power such as using the troops when necessary and thhis somehow gives the legitimacy to the state. Its the result that counts, not the means/process used to achieve the result. So, pwoer is the ultimate tool to prove one's legitimacy. No power, no legitimacy. 2. Referee or a Judge or whoever has the power to mediate, interfare when necessary- This works in an ideal society. As you said, people have differences, we all seem to disagree with what the other person or even the neutral referee/judge says. the result: conflicts continue. So, democracy or any other cracy can not resolve conflicts nor they can stop people from being power hungry- everybody wants his/her share and that is how the system works. If the state is not powerful enough, then there is always anarchy. And I believe that anarchy does not create solutions- it only creates more problems. 3. I see it as a continuation of the tradition assuming that the next offspring/kin in the line is equally good as the reigning one. You see it as a historical accident but I see it as a continuation of the tradition with the above-mentioned belief. 4. Your point 3 and point 4 contradict each other: 3 makes it legitimate, 4 makes it illegitimate. Whether we talk about the anicent, modern ages or today, we have to understand one thing: People want stability all the time. Nobody wants wars and anarchy, and the King because of so many historical/traditional/rteligious things attached to him, becomes a mysterious figure, and people tend to believe that he has some sort of magic wand that can solve all the problems. This social-historial-religious myseriousness attached to him gives him more credibility and power(?), and this is why the system becomes automatically legitimate [considering the afct that the majority of the people cannot be wrong.] If we were to believe it illegitimate, then all religions of the world become illegitimate. 5. The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli. Arthashastra, Chanakya. 6. The result will be disastrous, to say the least. 7. No. If you set aside all the political idealism and focus more on realism, what the King is doing right now is the only option he has on hand. There's nothing else he can do, even if he wants to. Yes, the options are there, but given the scenario, none of those options can be pursued. Alright, my quick comments. Apologies beforehand if I misread you or didn't get what you were trying to say. I don't claim myself to be well-vesred in politics, so, its not sort of challenging you or your informed conclusions, its just my disagreements. |
| noname | Posted
on 24-Mar-04 04:12 PM
IF, Nice that you posted your thoughts here. >>if I misread you Nope, you read me correctly! :) Only thing is we view the things differently. Let me quote one line from the article of in the December issue of Atlantic Monthly : 'The supremacist ideology of the Bush Adminstration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth." By the way, in the following link of The Empire Dialogue series from UC Berkeley, you can find Niall Fergussion (author of the EMPIRE), Ken Jowitt and Steven Weber discussing what else but the American Empire. If you haven't been through it before, I hope, you'll find the discussion very interesting. - http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/911/events/Nov3.html |
| noname | Posted
on 24-Mar-04 04:17 PM
Oops...The article in AM was by George Soros. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Mar-04 06:13 AM
Dear Noname, Yes, I did read that article in December, and if I remember correctly, I posted that article here in Sajha for those who do not visit the AM site :-) ( The Email alert thing is great). "'The supremacist ideology of the Bush Adminstration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth." This is interesting. Yes, the Bush administration's policy stands out from that of the rest of the world, but we have to udnerstand one thing here: Did Bush have any other option than pursuing a rather offensive or agressive foreign policy? I think Bush did not have any other option. After Sept 11, America saw the rise in American nationalism for the first time in many decades. People became suspicious of the foreigners and for better or worse, America saw an unprecedented surge of defensive nationalism. This nationalism had to be channeled somewhere so that it wouldn't create any problem in America. Imagine the extremist groups like Klu Klux Klan and the remnants of Black Panther or some underground Latino/Chicano movements taking advantage of the situation. So, whether Bush, Clinton or even Nader, they would have done the same thing but little differently: Clinton or orthers would have lobbied hard for the international support and a UN mandate and then only would have invaded Iraq and Afganisthan. Bush chose to ignore the international community altogether. This is the difference. Furthermore, if the world's only superpower does not wish to become a hegemon, then the days of being on the top are numbered. Its how the system is supposed to work: you have to be harsh at times to protect your primary and secondary interests. This brings us back to Realism and Neo-Realism. By the way, what do you think of the recent Israeli actions? I liked the interview of a Columbia Uni Prof in this weeks Newsweek "they are angry as ever. We are having a student discussion on this tomorrow. School can be fun at times!!! Again, not challenging your views. I will definately visit the Berkley page since some of my classmates are Berkley Pol Science students. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Mar-04 06:28 AM
stands out = stands in opposition |
| noname | Posted
on 25-Mar-04 04:36 PM
Let me clear few things first. Yes, I remember it correctly, none other than you posted the link! And, the reason I quoted the sentence was simply because of the fact that George Soros has underlined the necessary condition of an open society (bold letters), not because of his criticism of the Bush administration. Anyway, you have raised an interesting question. I agree with you on that the course of foreign policy would have taken the same course irrespective of the Dem or Rep president in the white house; however, not so sure about Nader, or even the vegan Dem. of Ohio, Denis Kucinich, for that matter. One case in point may be the immediate action in Kosovo and the who-cares-attitude in the humanitarian crisis of Rwanda during Clinton administration. However, the reason for this, I suppose, is the surplus of power of the United States offered by the end of cold war, not the nationalism. Richard Haass claimed long before Iraq attack, even before 9/11, on November 2000, that "Imperial understretch, not overstretch, appears the greater danger of the two." >> chose to ignore the international community altogether ! Very true. The argument that cold-war was age of negotiation and Post cold-war an age of consultation did not make any sense to Bush and the neo-cons. >> if the world's only superpower does not wish to become a hegemon, then the days of being on the top are numbered. Listen to Nial Fergussion in the link above, and his argument are very similar to yours. Although I disagree with the way they are forwarding their hegemony, the fact of the matter is hegemony is inevitable with single super power. what do you think of the recent Israeli actions? Honestly speaking, I was very hopeful about the so-called road map. I even predicted that the end of the ME conflict is very near. But I was wrong. The other day I watched footage of a 12 year (?) old boy wrapped in a bomb and a robot helping the boy to disarm. Doesn't that send a clear message to Israel that killing of an old and wheel chaired Yassin does not have any positive impact to end the conflict? It will, on the other hand, spiral the violence. Israel has exhausted all the tactics: they destroyed house of suicide bomber, they used target killing, they destroyed Palestinian authority, they cornered Yasser Arafat, and what not! Are they any closer to the solution ? Once again, America comes in the picture! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 25-Mar-04 09:54 PM
IF...it's been really long since I had a baad-bibaad with you on politics...achel jhyau laagchha bhanya poltiks guff garna Sajha ma...but this time I just could not help but make a quick comment on something you have said above. With all due respect, please allow me... You said: I think Machiavellian Realism is more applicable than any idealism when it comes to politics and running the state. To prove legitimacy the state/ruler has to exercise power such as using the troops when necessary and thhis somehow gives the legitimacy to the state. Its the result that counts, not the means/process used to achieve the result. So, pwoer is the ultimate tool to prove one's legitimacy. No power, no legitimacy. I think you are confusing the question of LEGITIMACY with that of EXISTENCE here -- the distinction between the two may be subtle, but very important nonetheless. Yes, an authority may use force, suppress opposition, etc., thus prove its' EXISTENCE by the virtue of Machiavellian Realism. However, EXISTENCE alone cannot prove its' LEGITIMACY -- LEGITIMACY can ONLY be proven by the collective willful consent of the governed. Just because a government EXISTS -- in the cases of authoritarian rules -- may not necessarily mean that the governed may have given those governments their willing support, which obviously puts the LEGITIMACY of those governments in question. Now, even in states where they have authoritarian governments, the rulers may seem legitimate in the eyes of SOME quarters of the ruled, particularly of those who benefit in one way or the other by having that particular government in place. However, in my view, we need the willful consent (legitimacy) of the majority of the ruled in order for ANY government to establish its' legitimacy. In rare cases of benevolent dictatorships, or in dictatorships where the majority of the people feel benefitted, however, an authoritarian rule may also be considered LEGITIMATE, simply because the majority of the ruled approves of its' EXISTENCE. |
| Biswo | Posted
on 26-Mar-04 11:24 AM
The last time I read 'The Prince', I didn't find Machiavelli prescribed only one way to prove the legitimacy of the ruler. Use of force has always been last resort in his advices. Where in The Prince had he prescribed use of force to prove legitimacy in one's own state, I don't know. He prescribes the use of force also as one of the means to control the subjects of another conquered territory. He often emphasizes to win the hearts. And most of the time Machiavelli makes two distinctions clear: i) Prince's treatment of subjects of conquered territory ii) Prince's treatment of subjects of his own territory Providing the cases of Italy or France and Turks, Machiavelli writes how easy it is for a foreign prince to control the state where one is king and rests are slave. In fact, Machiavelli always wants the prince to rule liberally and benignly his own state, while treating the subjects of other conquered states depending on how those states were ruled before the invasion. When I looked at the way Prithvi Narayan Shah ruled Kathmandu after invasion, I found that he had followed the best suggestions given by Machiavelli. [ Among his three suggestions regarding how to control the conquered territory, his first suggestion was for the prince to go there and live! Second was send colonies, and the third and apparently the worst was to send armies.] If read properly, The Prince is a lesson on how to run one's state effectively. Read with a corrupt and distorted mind, The Prince is a lesson on how to destroy one's state gradually.To those who mind is still in sixteenth century regarding how to rule a nation, The Prince is a dangerously anachronistic reference. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 27-Mar-04 01:56 AM
Alrights guys, here are some more quick comments: Noname, However, the reason for this, I suppose, is the surplus of power of the United States offered by the end of cold war, not the nationalism. Richard Haass claimed long before Iraq attack, even before 9/11, on November 2000, that "Imperial understretch, not overstretch, appears the greater danger of the two." This is a great point. However, I still think that to understand the Post 9-11 American FP, one has to take nationalism into consideration. Of cousre, the surplus of power was there and Bush took advantage of it, and that's what any leader in his position would have done. There's no other super power, nor anyone is likely to be one pretty soon if the US doesn't pursue an agressive/adventurist (? is this a word) FP. Otherwise the "informal" and "formal" alliances due to "secret" and "Open diplomacy" will challenge the American hegemony.I guess a forceful prsence in the system to inforce and reinforce the American supremacy is the only natural and sensible course of action because it will most likely kill the alliances, and help America remain on the top. Israel: All the students opposed the action. Israel by using the force to kill an old man has given legitimacy to the Hamas. Americans acted sensibley this time by changing the rhetoric, otherwise it was moist likely that the Hamas would have focused its attention to the American soldiers stationed in Iraq. Poonte dai, Hariffffff explanation! Now, legitimacy and existance: Don't you think a forceful existence in the long run results in automatic legitimacy? I tend to believe that. Power somehow secures your existance and in the long run, gives you the legitimacy to run the state. So, the best course of action is to be very "unpopular in the short run to be popular in the long run." "Now, even in states where they have authoritarian governments, the rulers may seem legitimate in the eyes of SOME quarters of the ruled, particularly of those who benefit in one way or the other by having that particular government in place. However, in my view, we need the willful consent (legitimacy) of the majority of the ruled in order for ANY government to establish its' legitimacy. " This happens even in democracies. There are always cliques/groups that benifit from the state/rulers where as the others (majority or minority depending on the context) feel left out. To those, who benifit, they tend to think the rulers as legitimate, those who do not, tend to think the rulers/state illegitimate. We are in the state of nature all the time- there's problems always and everyone is power hugry. In this context, whoever can provide stability automatcially becomes legitimate- Mero Bichar ma. Plus, no due respect and blah blah necessary ni Poonte bro. You are almost graduating or have graduated already, and I have just started. So, its great to learn from you and no name. Its always good to learn/read comments of the people who know the stuff and who do not resort to labelling and you know all that. My apologies to Noname and poonte dai again, if I somehow diverted the content of the original post or lumped everytyhing together or misread you both. K agrney, Angreji not being my mu yu (mother tongue), its hard to understand certain things and very easy to misread things at times. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 27-Mar-04 01:57 AM
US doesn't pursue = If the US Keeps on |
| nepali_angel | Posted
on 27-Mar-04 10:21 AM
1. Re: the Chomsky quote, Chomsky, an extreme leftist, is not in any position to speak on behalf of the public about "the burden of proof" resting on the authoritarian and Co, because Chomsky's opinion does not represent the opinion of the general mass. Proof of legitimacy is but a single reason that begets dismantling of a political system, whether it be authoritarian or different. Lack of funds to govern efficaciously, brutality, losing wars and being replaced by a different ruler, shunning the public's wishes are some good reasons that can add to the fall. Further, the responsibility of proving legitimacy does not rest on anyone's shoulder's, for the people who are being imposed upon themselves will revolt for change, ala the French Revolution. If, however, there is not enough momentum for change, then more than likely, the government will remain intact. So, a. King Birendra's options were limited, and he granted "democracy". b. King Gyanendra, on the other hand, capitalized on people's fear of Maoist insurgency, which will abet in bringing back the old system. Gyanendra will have no true challenger; Giriji and Co failed and the Maoists are indelible threats. Gyanendra will play a big hand as long as the Maoists remain national threats, and as such the Maoists' objective to topple monarchy will only remain a wish. Ergo, it is fair to say that they only serve to make the King stronger. The Maoists' own agendas have worked against them, in hindsight. 2. First and foremost, everybody aims for equality. A monarch who has not won the people's heart is not an able monarch, whether he has fulfilled all his gubernatorial obligations or not, with the proviso in my opinion being that he is allowed to function efficiently. The problem again is civil war in Nepal, and therefore it would be unfair to judge Gyanendra's abilities without taking this big problem into account. If you want to know why there hasn't been a revolt, see number 1. 3. Nepal is an underdeveloped nation, where clean water, food and proper nutrition for all are important issues, but the biggest issue is national security. We are all striving for individual liberty, which unfortunately cannot come to full fruition until we deal with the Maoist threat. Till then, Nepal does seem to resemble a primordial society, does it not? Good reason why monarchy is so important. The best thing to do is to take small steps and save our own hide than to jump blindly in an abyss, which is a big gamble that can either pay us big, or lead us the wrong way. 4. We haven't reaced number four in Nepal yet, noname. Our leader is still the king. Is it really that the "opportunist leaders" are controlling the king, or is it the other way around? To me, it is obvious that the "leaders" are only playing second fiddle to the King. Who selected who, tell me. 5, 6 and 7. Moot pointers because we are still stuck in number 3. Furthermore, as I said, the onus does not lie on the King to prove his legitimacy. 8. Maoists are to be blamed. |
| noname | Posted
on 28-Mar-04 03:12 PM
Hi all Great thoughts pouring in ! I couldn't join you all earlier because of an 'earlier' weekend in this part of the world ! Just quick comments to Nepali_angel: I didn't say Chomsky is not an 'extreme left' ! :) Let me return to this thread after reading King's speech yesterday, and the developments thereafter ! |
| noname | Posted
on 29-Mar-04 03:37 AM
Nothing new in the king's speech. Deshbhakti lai milanbindu banaune is nothing new. He didn't mention about the tragic event the other day, neither did he mention directly about the conflict. "Hinsapidit haruka lagi ke garne"...KE GARNE KE GARNE...TINIHARUKO SANKHYA BADHAUNE ...? *** I have nothing new to add to my earlier points, so rather I would ponder upon some of the interesting points raised by nepali_angel. >> Lack of funds to govern efficaciously, brutality, losing wars and being replaced by a different ruler, shunning the public's wishes are some good reasons that can add to the fall. Let me add few more: the ruler turning insane, death of the ruler, the ruler resigning from his or her post ! However, does this equate to the question of legitimacy ? >> Gyanendra will play a big hand as long as the Maoists remain national threats, and as such the Maoists' objective to topple monarchy will only remain a wish. Ergo, it is fair to say that they only serve to make the King stronger. This a very interesting point. However, I still think that with growth of Maoism, and their propoganda machine, the monarch will lose popularity. And more so, when the the king chooses to lead the confrontation from the front (as the king is doing now!). >> A monarch who has not won the people's heart is not an able monarch … Very true. How do we judge whether the monarch has or hasn't been able to win the people's heart? >> Nepal is an underdeveloped nation, where clean water, food and proper nutrition for all are important issues, but the biggest issue is national security. We are all striving for individual liberty, which unfortunately cannot come to full fruition until we deal with the Maoist threat. Till then, Nepal does seem to resemble a primordial society, does it not? What I suppose from your argument is that the maoists are considered national threat. But how does the issue of national security take us to primordial society ? **** On another note, I think pre-industrial revolution era, Nepal (more specifically Kathmandu) was not too far behind from any other countries in technology, let alone the neighbouring countries ! (I am afraid that this statement may be too general, and so far I haven't read any extensive study regarding this). Nepal could build 9 (?) tiered temples and Nepal could export architects like Arniko ! The nail biting wood carvings, Boudha Stupa, Swayambhu all are the artefacts depicting that we were not far behind. Dharahara, although built in early 19th century, had more height than what it measures now. In my view, all this changed and the society lagged behind when the industrial revolution took place and we couldn't match with the pace of the westerners. Although this might have many things to do with our philosophy for looking inside and exploring oneself rather than exploring the world, I believe that rule of one clan and one family also contributed largely to our under performance. The industrial revolution meant that the products are for mass consumption. However, in Nepal the products were meant only for the ruling class. Singh Durbar, Bagh Durbar, Babar Mahal and other facilities were built for personal use. The nail that tried to stick out got hammered down. More on this later..some other day ! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 29-Mar-04 08:44 AM
I have already said I loathe indulging in lengthy political debates on Sajha these days, and I still stand by it, albeit it is very tempting. However, I would like to make a quick comment on what nepali_angel had to say about Chomsky. It is true that many of Chomsky's views/ideas resonate with the extreme left; however, this SHOULD NOT, and DOES NOT, discredit at least some of his views that make utmost sense. Afterall, not matter how many people may not prescribe to ALL of his views, one cannot disregard the fact that he remains an intellectual of high caliber. Even though I too seem to lean left on many issues myself, sometimes I do find SOME of Chomsky's views rather extreme and I simply disgree with him. Nevertheless, if I ever shunned ALL of his ideas simply by labeling him an "extreme left," just because I may disagree with him on one [or more] instance(s), then I would do grave injustice to many of his other ideas that make perfect sense. For instance, what noname has quoted form Chomsky above [on legitimacy of an authority] is an undeniable truth (at least for me); and if anyone wishes to disagree, it is perfectly fine for him/her to come forth with strong counter arguments -- I just rather not have them dismiss an idea by what they might think of him as a person. For reference, here's the quote once again: "Power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can't prove it, then it should be dismantled. It's not the responsibility of anyone else to show that it's illegitimate. It's illegitimate by assumption, if it's a relation of authority among human beings which places some above others. That's illegitimate by assumption. Unless you can give a strong argument to show that it's right, you've lost." |
| SITARA | Posted
on 30-Mar-04 08:37 PM
Interesting discussions here, although, politics is not my field. Re: Chomsky-- Although, he is one of the most quoted modern day American intellectual this day, and despite his calculated affront to popular opinions regarding 9/11 terrorism, I find his rationalization of power and legitimacy a bit hypocritical given that (despite his claim of being an anarchist and a libertarian) he supported/defended authoritarian regimes like Pol Pot's to the point where he has refused to acknowledge the genocide carried out under Pol Pot's regime. In fact he was pro communist Vietnam and Cambodia; he never demanded that the leaders be tried for war crimes. Given that Chomsky never belonged to any Leftis group, he has not been pegged as a radical leftist. Although, his current rationalization on America's role in the terror war (as being equally if not more to blame) suits my line of thinking, his track record when systematically examined indicates that he has been selective of evidences; this, to fit his analysis into his theories building up to "The American Power and The New Mandarins". |
| noname | Posted
on 31-Mar-04 03:52 AM
SITARA, your point is well taken. But again, I am with Poonte on this that even as a free standing paragraph, the quote well serves to underline the 'anarchist' meaning of legitimacy of power. Obsessed against the US foreign policy, Chomsky ended up defending, or in a sense not criticizing properly, the atrocities of POL POT (I haven't read both (?) of his volumes on Indo-China). Although he survived, I suppose, that was nadir of his intellectual career. I learnt that he responded to each single critique individually; however, it's another matter whether they were satisfied or not. Regarding Chomsky's track record, this paragraph from NYT may give some more insight (From 'Hegemony or Survival': The Everything Explainer by SAMANTHA POWER, Jan 4, 2004) : ""Survival or Hegemony'' is not easy to read. Chomsky's glib and caustic tone is distracting. He relies heavily upon quotations, but rarely identifies the speaker or writer. The endnotes supply more frustration. Bill Clinton's humanitarian rationale for the Kosovo war was ridiculed ''by leading military and political analysts'' in Israel, we are told, but the citation leads only to an earlier book by Chomsky himself. When he agrees with a claim, Chomsky introduces it with the word ''uncontroversially'' or credits it to ''distinguished authorities.'' Those who don't share his viewpoint don't simply disagree; they are the ''prevailing intellectual culture'' or the ''educated classes.'' This is a thinker far too accustomed to preaching to an uncritical choir. Often he meets official falsehoods with exaggerations of his own. President Clinton, he says, ''was flying Al Qaeda and Hezbollah operatives to Bosnia to support the U.S. side in the ongoing wars.'' And ''radical Islamists'' have taken over in Kosovo, leading to a ''Taliban phenomenon.'' These are far-fetched claims that he doesn't adequately back up". However, they are all mainstream media, aren't they ? :) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 31-Mar-04 07:53 AM
Well, regarding Chomsky, I too find some of his views way far fetched. However, some of his views/pieces/books present what the mainstream press lacks, i.e, the other side of the issue(s). So, I too, wouldn't discredit his views just like that, just because he has a leftist tilt. If we start discrediting everyone leftist, then we better discredit Albert Einstien! Chomsky is a part of the system. People like Chomsky are needed for the system to survive. I see Chomsky being more like the Hungarian/Chezchoslovakian film makers of the Socialist era- they were tolerated and often times funded by the state to make movies to criticize the state. (maybe this view o'mine is far fetched too.. let it be then... k ko clarification slarification explanation....) |