Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
> You just endorsed Carrol Cox's comparison of the U.S. to Nazi
> Germany. Like I said before, the U.S. role in the world is full of
> contradictions, both murderously repressive and sometimes liberating,
> as is U.S. society itself. There was nothing contradicctory about
> Nazi Germany. It was 110% bad.
>
> Doug
>
If your going to indulge in casuistic arguements you may as well point out how everything in the world is contradictory -- including Nazi Germany. The point here is not how great Coca-Cola or any other product of the American experience is -- no one is or has been claiming that nothing of worth has ever emanated from America's shores. The focus here, which you seem to take relish in distracting us from with pained talk of rampant anti-americanism, is how American *state* policy towards the third world is precisely Nazi-like -- granted, with all the 'contradictions' that such a characterization would entail.
Doug also said:
>
> > I was exaggerating a bit, and I should make it clear that I admire
> > Chomsky tremendously. But I think he, and people like him, tend not
> > to give enough weight to the malign interests and practices of
> > outside forces - comprador classes in the Third World, the EU and
> > Japanese ruling classes, despots and religious reactionaries all over
> > the place, etc. It's a very U.S.-centric view of the world
> > (paralleling Chomsky's very American anti-theoretical empiricism).
> >
This is nonsense. Chomsky has repeatedly described the complexity and mediations of imperialism and has often shifted emphasis in order to bring the underlying mediations into better focus, as needed. As a serious critic he needs to emphasize the US for two obvious reasons: a) the unparalleled and unprecedented role the US has as world hegemon in *determining the framework* of the world system/market and how everyone is to be fitted into it, and b) his ethical responsibilties as a relatively free citizen at the heart of this empire to fight against what is done in his name. He has always, always, always, however, distinguished between US state policy and the american public. Jeeeez! Funny also that you would decry a percieved anti-theoretical and empiricist bias in Chomsky when almost all your arguements as of late have been remarkably ahistorical and untheoritical in bent. To emphasise, as you do, the comprador class and other immediate or proximal causes of terror in the world while arguing that analysing the larger framework created, sustained and enforced by liberal doses of american terror as being a form of "anti-americanism" betrays quite an anti-theoretical refusal to see or grasp the workings of the overall system in favour of secondary facors like comprador classes, which are essentially products of the system. Indeed much of the world's comprador class, as Chomsky has at times (quite uncontroversially) pointed out, would essentially collapse if the American support for the class, and boot over their subject people, were removed.
By the way the charge of anti-theoretical or empiricist bias against Chomsky would essentially be correct had it come from almost anyone aside from Zizek. Chomsky is pretty much spot on in his political analysis. All of Zizek's earlier comments were either completely wrong (as in the eg. perfectly pointed out by Dennis P) or a stupid lazy carictures. Chomsky's anti-theoretical and ahistorical bias come out when dealing with 'deeper' issues like the ontological 'nature' of individuals, groups and society and the deeper structures and origins of ideology. If you stick to his political writings it doesnt come out. If you look more at his interviews or look at the philosophical commentary related to his linguistics, the history of ideas/ideology or nature of historical change its more perceptible. Indeed at times he can be almost riduculously reductionist. But again it really doesnt come out unless you really familiar with his writing. To see his empiricist/anti-theoretical bias in its extreme form you have to go to his 'disciple' Michael Albert -- who appears to have taken what may have been for Chomsky secondary thoughts and converted them into a full blown crude empiricist approach to history/philosophy /science.
-Pradeep