2 Responses to “Chomsky”

1. 

   # Honzo [Member]on 28 Sep 2006 at 5:12 pm

   I think he is more of a libertarian socialist, rather than an
   anarchist. I have encountered some of his writings in my classes, but I
   do not claim to be an expert on him. My main problem is that I don’t
   think he applies the same principles to other nations as he does ours.
   That is the very definition of hypocrisy, is it not? He has endorsed
   those countries or at least found good things to say about them, or
   rationalized their abuses results of our actions, transferring their
   guilt onto the United States. He is an instance of apologizing for China:

   CHOMSKY: Let me make just a couple of quick comments. Dr.
   Arendt takes rather an absolutist view, that I don’t share, about
   certain historical phenomena such as the character of the new societies
   that have emerged. I don’t feel that they deserve a blanket
   condemnation at all. There are many things to object to in any society.
   But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are
   really quite admirable. Many things, in fact, do meet the sort of
   Luxembourgian conditions that apparently Dr. Arendt and I agree about.
   There are even better examples than China. But I do think that China is
   an important example of a new society in which very interesting
   positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of
   the collectivization and communization was really based on mass
   participation and took place after a level of understanding had been
   reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.

   On Chavez:

   The 77-year-old linguistics professor told the New York Times newspaper last week that he would be “happy to meet” Mr Chavez.

   He said he is “quite interested” in Mr Chavez’s policies and regards many of his views as “quite constructive”.

   From the Freedom House: Eroding Democracy

   Hugo Chavez’s febrile brand of politics has sent ripples
   throughout Latin America, causing concerns both inside and outside the
   region about a possible contagion of authoritarian populism. With much
   of President Chavez’s energies seemingly devoted to issues beyond
   Venezuela’s borders — railing against the United States in particular
   – what often gets lost is the impact that Chavez-style governance is
   having at home on Venezuela’s crucial institutions.

   A study being released today by Freedom House reveals the extent of the
   erosion of democratic institutions. The findings on Venezuela in
   Countries at the Crossroads suggest that chavismo may be exerting
   irrevocable harm upon indispensable institutions, including the
   judiciary and the news media.

   The study covers events in 2004 and 2005 and examines key areas of
   governance in 30 strategically important countries. It shows that
   Venezuela’s scores have dropped across the board, in all four
   indicators of good governance addressed in the study: accountability
   and public voice, civil liberties, rule of law, and anti-corruption and
   transparency. In fact, only Nepal, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria have
   experienced a greater net change for the worse.

   More corruption

   Particularly disturbing is Venezuela’s sharp decline in governmental
   transparency and the general environment against corruption. In this
   category, Venezuela has dropped from the top to the bottom third of the
   countries examined, since the last review in 2004. During this time,
   the government has increased significantly its command over the
   economy, providing state officials with mounting opportunities for
   personal enrichment.

   Since 2004, Venezuela has also seen a number of legislative acts and
   court decisions that are at odds with a system that respects press
   freedom. Among these restrictive measures is a July 2004 act that
   allows the government to monitor the work of journalists. The law
   provides for compulsory registration with the national journalism
   association and punishes reporters’ “illegal” conduct with prison
   sentences.

   Moreover, the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and TV, which
   took effect in December 2004, gives the government control over the
   content of radio and television programs. The president has at the same
   time undertaken a vigorous campaign to marginalize the opposition and
   curb dissenting voices. In a move to inhibit public criticism, in March
   2005 the government amended Venezuela’s criminal code to expand laws
   that punish “disrespect for government authorities.”

   A ‘blacklist of political opponents’ has been created, which
   effectively has denied access to state jobs and services to many
   thousands of Venezuelans deemed Chavez-unfriendly. Very alarming is the
   proposed Law of International Cooperation, which will severely damage
   the ability of Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations to work
   independently by creating excessive obstacles for both registration and
   access to funds.

   High oil prices have so far offered a cushion for the inefficiency and
   corruption that are burgeoning in Venezuela, but this oil wealth cannot
   mask the flaws of Chavez’s governance indefinitely. The more that
   democratic institutions and accountability are abused, the more
   capricious and corrupt the Venezuelan system will become.

   Voters abstaining

   There is evidence to suggest Venezuelans already may be growing tired
   of Chavez’s act. The country’s shrinking accountability has brought
   with it rising corruption and mismanagement. A significant number of
   voters apparently voted with their feet in last December’s elections
   for the National Assembly — by not moving them and staying at home.
   Only 25 percent of the electorate participated in the election.

   However, given the opposition’s disengagement and weak level of support
   and with less than five months until December’s elections, it is very
   likely that Chavez will win another six-year term.

   Venezuela sorely needs a normalization of its politics and a change in
   the trajectory of its governance. But such a normalization is becoming
   an ever taller order with all of the country’s critical power
   institutions now in the hands of Chavez supporters, no meaningful
   challenge to decision making from the government’s legislative branch,
   and a judiciary ever more dependent on the executive.

   Reply - Quote

2. 

   # dave [Visitor]on 29 Sep 2006 at 9:51 am

   The 77-year-old linguistics professor told the New York Times newspaper last week that he would be “happy to meet” Mr Chavez.

   He said he is “quite interested” in Mr Chavez’s policies and regards many of his views as “quite constructive”.

   Hmmm…I
   completely agree with Chomsky here. I would also love to meet Chavez,
   and I too am quite interested in many of his views and policies.
   Now…I also think that Chavez is crazy and is the wrong person to be
   criticizing the Bush adminstration, but he does have some very
   constructive things.

   Saying that does not mean that I endorse Chavez or think he is perfect.

   Reply - Quote

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website