>And Noam Chomsky knows as well as I do the first obligation of every
>participant in any speech situation: to do your best to raise the level of
>the debate--not to create false consciousness.
>
>The use of political debate as an opportunity to create false
consciousness...
>The opposing of hard-working "taxpayers" to sinister parasites...
>The invocation of nationalism...
>The condemnation of social democracy as a mask for plutocratic interests,
>coupled with a certain... fuzziness... as to what the alternative set of
>economic arrangements is.
I can believe that Chomsky gets it wrong when he says the Marshall Plan simply offset capital flight from Europe to the US, and even when he says it played a large role in benefitting US business interests at the expense of the "common man". I'll stay out of that debate.
But your implication that Chomsky is deliberately spreading misinformation is simply incorrect. Chomsky is usually VERY careful about backing up his assertions with reams of evidence. This doesn't mean he's infallible, but it does it does mean that he is a responsible academic.
Furthermore, your claim that he's guilty of "invoking nationalism" and seeing "sinister parasites" who feed off of the hard working average Joe is monstrously unfair. A superficial familiarity with Chomsky's political writing should convince you of this.
One of the most common themes in Chomsky's writing is how hypocritical nations are in applying the principles which they profess to uphold. The US is the target of most of his criticism, although in general he spares nobody. It is abundantly clear from his writing and his speeches that he believes principles like democracy and human rights, etc. should be applied to all people regardless of nationality, and he is constantly and consistently criticizing those who violate these principles. He is just as quick to condemn Saddam Hussein or the old Soviet Union for their transgressions as he is to criticize the US or Israel.
In fact he deliberately emphasizes the crimes committed by the US and its allies because he feels it is the responsibility of intellectuals to point out the inconsistencies and abuses committed by their own governments. The principle here, which he has clearly stated on innumerable occasions, is that since you have some influence over policy in your own country (especially relatively free societies like the US) you share some of the responsibility for crimes committed by your own government and you have an obligation to try to prevent such abuses. This is practically the antithesis of nationalism.
Chomsky also stresses institutional analysis. Again, Chomsky is very clear on this topic. He tries very hard to reject the notion that he believes in some cabal of greedy elites plotting against the rest of us. He has written over and over again that the problem lies not with individuals, but with institutional structures that perpetuate undesirable social outcomes by rewarding individual behavior which leads to these outcomes.
>You can call this political complexion whatever you want. You can even
>ignore that it exists. But it *is* a kissing cousin to Action Francaise,
>Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, and the National Socialist German
>Workers' Party. It isn't full-blown fascism. But it is proto- or
>pseudo-fascism.
>
>I don't have to bury my head in the sand and pretend that we aren't hearing
>more of it from *all* directions on the political spectrum.
I like the fact that you challenge a lot of things said in this list, even if I don't always agree with you positions. I respect your viewpoint. But calling Chomsky a proto-fascist borders on character assassination - its analagous to calling Reagan a marxist. It just isn't true, not even close.
Brett