Imperial Ambitions: Conversations with Noam Chomsky on the Post-9/11 World
Started reading the above book earlier this week, which I bought on my recent trip to KL. I've heard about Chomsky in the past, but this is the first time I've read any of his works/interviews. A brief biography of Chomsky can be found from Wikipedia here.
Am about 1/3 of the way through this series of interviews with David Barsamian. I find Chomsky to be amusing, and wickedly acidic. He subscribes to some, what one might term, quite "conspiracy theory-like" theories. He is essentially an ultra left-wingist, who has been/is against all aspects of American foreign policy since his life-time.
Some excerpts I found interesting:
On "Propaganda"
If you go back to 1933, for example, the liberal, progressive Wilsonian scholar Harold Lasswell, the founder of a good bit of modern political science, wrote an article called "Propaganda" in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. People used the term propaganda openly then, before the association of the word with the Nazis; now people use various euphemisms.
Laswell's message was that we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests". They're not. Elites are. And since people are too stupid and ignorant to understand their best interests, we must - because we're great humanitarians - marginalize and control them for their own benefit. And the best way to do this is through propaganda. There is nothing negative about propaganda, Laswell said. It's as neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good or for evil.
And since we're noble, wonderful people, we'll use it for good and to ensure that the stupid, ignorant masses remain marginalized and separated from any decision-making capacity. This is not the rightwing that I'm talking about; these are the liberal, progressive intellectuals.
And, in fact, you can find approximately the same thinking in Leninist doctrines. The Nazis also picked up these ideas...and since then many others have tried it. But the United States remains in the forefront because it's the most free and democratic society, so it's much more important to control attitudes and opinions here.
Speaking on the "legality" of the US invasion of Iraq
A recent issue of the American Journal of International Law has a complex, thoughtful article by Carsten Stahn called "Enforcement of the Collective Will After Iraq". Stahn quotes Jugen Habermas and all sorts of other big thinkers. His argument comes down to this: When the United States invaded Iraq, it actually was abiding by the UN Charter, if one interprets it properly. We have to recognize two interpretations of the Charter...
...[T]here is the "communitarian" interpretation of the Charter, that an act is legitimate if it carries out the will of the community of the nations. Since the Security Council doesn't have the military force to carry out the will of the community of nations, it implicitly delegates this role to states that do have the force, meaning the United States. And therefore, under the communitarian interpretation of the Charter, the United States, by invading Iraq, was fulfilling the will of the international community.
It's irrelevant that 90% of the world's population and almost all states bitterly condemned the invasion. These nations just don't understand their own will. Their actual will was expressed in Security Council resolutions with which Iraq didn't fully comply, and so on.
Therefore, under the subtle and complex communitarian interpretation, the Untied States was using force with the authorization of the Security Council even though the Security Council denied it.
This is a large part of what the academic profession does. Academics make up complex, subtle arguments that are childishly ridiculous but are enveloped in sufficient profundity and footnotes and references to allegedly deep thinkers so that you can construct a framework which has, in some strange universe, a kind of plausibility.
Am about 1/3 of the way through this series of interviews with David Barsamian. I find Chomsky to be amusing, and wickedly acidic. He subscribes to some, what one might term, quite "conspiracy theory-like" theories. He is essentially an ultra left-wingist, who has been/is against all aspects of American foreign policy since his life-time.
Some excerpts I found interesting:
On "Propaganda"
If you go back to 1933, for example, the liberal, progressive Wilsonian scholar Harold Lasswell, the founder of a good bit of modern political science, wrote an article called "Propaganda" in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. People used the term propaganda openly then, before the association of the word with the Nazis; now people use various euphemisms.
Laswell's message was that we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests". They're not. Elites are. And since people are too stupid and ignorant to understand their best interests, we must - because we're great humanitarians - marginalize and control them for their own benefit. And the best way to do this is through propaganda. There is nothing negative about propaganda, Laswell said. It's as neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good or for evil.
And since we're noble, wonderful people, we'll use it for good and to ensure that the stupid, ignorant masses remain marginalized and separated from any decision-making capacity. This is not the rightwing that I'm talking about; these are the liberal, progressive intellectuals.
And, in fact, you can find approximately the same thinking in Leninist doctrines. The Nazis also picked up these ideas...and since then many others have tried it. But the United States remains in the forefront because it's the most free and democratic society, so it's much more important to control attitudes and opinions here.
Speaking on the "legality" of the US invasion of Iraq
A recent issue of the American Journal of International Law has a complex, thoughtful article by Carsten Stahn called "Enforcement of the Collective Will After Iraq". Stahn quotes Jugen Habermas and all sorts of other big thinkers. His argument comes down to this: When the United States invaded Iraq, it actually was abiding by the UN Charter, if one interprets it properly. We have to recognize two interpretations of the Charter...
...[T]here is the "communitarian" interpretation of the Charter, that an act is legitimate if it carries out the will of the community of the nations. Since the Security Council doesn't have the military force to carry out the will of the community of nations, it implicitly delegates this role to states that do have the force, meaning the United States. And therefore, under the communitarian interpretation of the Charter, the United States, by invading Iraq, was fulfilling the will of the international community.
It's irrelevant that 90% of the world's population and almost all states bitterly condemned the invasion. These nations just don't understand their own will. Their actual will was expressed in Security Council resolutions with which Iraq didn't fully comply, and so on.
Therefore, under the subtle and complex communitarian interpretation, the Untied States was using force with the authorization of the Security Council even though the Security Council denied it.
This is a large part of what the academic profession does. Academics make up complex, subtle arguments that are childishly ridiculous but are enveloped in sufficient profundity and footnotes and references to allegedly deep thinkers so that you can construct a framework which has, in some strange universe, a kind of plausibility.