Joe W.
>From: "Joseph Wanzala" <jwanzala at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Chomsky on conspiracies
>Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:33:43 -0800
>
>...problem is, who gets to decide who is and who is not a 'conspiracy
>theorist' or what is 'straightforward analysis'? Chomsky's 'institutional
>analysis' is derided by people on the right or 'in power' as a 'conspiracy
>theory'. Chomsky said that the term itself is "one of the devices by which
>power defends itself" and then deploys the term itself. The contradiction
>lies in his trying to have it both ways. In further contradiction, Chomsky
>has also said:-
>
>A: That's true maybe of people in the Harvard faculty, but that's because
>for them conspiracy is a curse word. If something comes along that you
>don't like, there are a few sort of four-letter words that you can use to
>push it out of the sphere of discussion. If you were in a bar downtown,
>they might have different words, but if you're an educated person what you
>use are complicated words like conspiracy theory or Marxist....It's a way
>of pushing unpleasant questions off the agenda so that we can continue in
>our own happy ideology.
>
>http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/04/01/NOAM_CHOMSKY.html
>
>see also:-
>
>"Noam Chomsky is today's most sophisticated conspiracy theorist."
>
>http://www.constitution.org/hwheeler/contheory3.htm
>
>>From: Louis Kontos <Louis.Kontos at liu.edu>
>>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Chomsky on conspiracies
>>Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:28:26 -0800
>>
>>Where's the contradiction? There are conspiracy theorists and there are
>>people who engage in straightforward analysis who are called conspiracy
>>theorists in order to dismiss their work. These statements, moreover,
>>hardly
>>seem controversial.
>>
>>
>> > Doug Henwood wrote:
>> >
>> > [from a snotty profile of Chomsky in today's Guardian
>> >
>><http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,
>> > 6000,1605276,00.html>]
>> >
>> > "One of the good things about the internet is you can put up anything
>>you
>> > like, but that also means you can put up any kind of nonsense. If the
>> > intelligence agencies knew what they were doing, they would stimulate
>> > conspiracy theories just to drive people out of political life, to keep
>>them
>> > from asking more serious questions."
>> >
>> > _____________
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd be interested to see how uncle Noam would reconcile the above with
>>what
>> > he said below in a 1990 interview. Perhaps he is he a born again
>> > 'inconsistency theorist'....:-
>> >
>> > Joe W.
>> >
>> > http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19900907.htm
>> >
>> > QUESTION: Well, do you feel also ... I mean, I know that you have
>>advanced
>> > these arguments and a number of other people have also advanced these
>> > arguments -- they are there to be found by anyone who wants to seek
>>them
>> > out.... But at the same time, I think there's a great effort in the
>> > mainstream media to write these arguments off as conspiracy theory.
>> >
>> > CHOMSKY: That's one of the devices by which power defends itself -- by
>> > calling any critical analysis of institutions a conspiracy theory. If
>>you
>> > call it by that name, then somehow you don't have to pay attention to
>>it.
>> > Edward Herman and I, in our recent book, Manufacturing Consent, go into
>>this
>> > ploy. What we discuss in that book is simply the institutional factors
>>that
>> > essentially set parameters for reporting and interpretation in the
>> > ideological institutions. Now, to call that a conspiracy theory is a
>>little
>> > bit like saying that, when General Motors tries to increase its market
>> > share, it's engaged in a conspiracy. It's not. I mean, part of the
>>structure
>> > of corporate capitalism is that the players in the game try to increase
>> > profits and market shares; in fact, if they didn't, they would no
>>longer be
>> > players in the game. Any economist knows this. And it's not conspiracy
>> > theory to point that out; it's just taken for granted. If someone were
>>to
>> > say, "Oh, no, that's a conspiracy," people would laugh.
>> >
>> > Well, exactly the same is true when you discuss the more complex array
>>of
>> > institutional factors that determine such things as what happens in the
>> > media. It's precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory. In fact, as
>>you
>> > mentioned before, I generally tend to downplay the role of individuals
>>--
>> > they're replaceable pieces. So, it's exactly the opposite of conspiracy
>> > theory. It's normal institutional analysis -- the kind of analysis you
>>do
>> > automatically when you're trying to understand how the world works. And
>>to
>> > call it conspiracy theory is simply part of the effort to prevent an
>> > understanding of how the world works.
>> >
>> > QUESTION: Well, I think also the term has been assigned a different
>>meaning.
>> > If you look at the root of the term itself -- conspire, to breathe
>>together,
>> > breathe the same air -- I mean, it seems to suggest a kind of shared
>> > interest on the part of the people "breathing together." It just seems
>>that
>> > the word has been coopted for a different use now.
>> >
>> > CHOMSKY: Well, certainly, it's supposed to have some sort of sinister
>> > meaning; it's a bunch of people getting together in back rooms deciding
>>what
>> > appears in all the newspapers in this country. And sometimes that does
>> > happen; but, by and large, that's not the way it works. The way it
>>works is
>> > the way we described in Manufacturing Consent. In fact, the model that
>>we
>> > used -- what we called the propaganda model -- is essentially an
>> > uncontroversial guided free market model.
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>> >
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/