Chomsky on Vietnam

[Max Sawicky]

I think it must be conceded that Chomsky's statement only makes
sense under a relatively narrow definition of "independent," namely
independent of private capital and socialist to some important extent.
As capitalism(s) go, SK is as independent as anything else, IMO.

mbs


> Brad DeLong wrote:
>
> > Well, yes, South Korea did benefit substantially (and Thailand
> > benefited in the decade around 1970s) from U.S. military spending.
> > But in what sense does this make them, today, "not independent"
> > countries?
>
> Since 1953, by treaty obligation, the South Korean military has been
> formally under the command of a U.S. general. Not terribly
> independent. But
> of course, despite the mischaracterization by Brad, Chomsky did not say
> South Korea is not "an independent country." He said South Korean economic
> development, unlike Vietnam's threatened course, was not "independent" of
> the US-led multilateral economic system. It's a distinction - independent
> vs. US-led development - that US officials themselves often made in the
> internal documentary record. To use an example Chomsky often cites, Arthur
> Schlesinger's 1961 report to JFK on the threat of the spread throughout
> Latin American of "the Castro idea of taking matters into one's
> own hands,"
> while "Russia is hovering in the background, offering development
> loans and
> presenting itself as a model for industrialization in a single
> generation."
>
> Seth
>