Blog PostsNoam Chomsky and Lew Rockwell
By Chris Green at Dec 26, 2007 |
|
I think what Rockwell may have in mind (see below) about Chomsky praising Khmer Rouge economic policies was the quote that David Horowitz and Peter Collier attributed to him in their 1985 Washington Post article where Chomsky allegedly said in 1975 that the Khmer Rouge were brining a new era of peace and prosperity to Cambodia. In 1985 Christopher Hitchens (http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.html) showed that Horowitz and Collier had actually taken the words "a new era of peace and prosperity", not from anything written in 1975 about the Khmer Rouge, but from a 1972 preface to a book of interviews with Prince Siahnouk where Chomsky expressed politely, probably thinking that Siahnouk was the only viable alternative to the Lon Nol regime and U.S. war crimes, the hope that that Siahnouk and his people might be able to return to Cambodia and make things better. I would have thought that Rockwell would be a little bit above repeating such lies with such non-existent evidence to back them up. Also he seems to think that because Chomsky will not vote for Ron Paul if he were in a contest with Hillary Clinton, then ipso facto, he would vote for Hillary. It doesn't seem to occur to him that Chomsky might vote "none of the above." Rockwell is very respected by the Counterpunch brethren, at least by Cockburn and Josh Frank, who get a little too enthusiastic about anti-war right wing libertarians.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017960.html
December 23, 2007
Comrade Noam
Posted by Lew Rockwell at December 23, 2007 01:11 PM
Noam Chomsky has written many brilliant books on US foreign policy, the manufacturing of consent by the regime, etc. He holds himself out as antiwar, though he is for UN wars. Murray Rothbard never forgot Chomsky's endorsement of the Year Zero anti-economic policies of the Khmer Rouge. Here's more proof of his belief in the state and its war on property owners. He even says that he would support Hillary Clinton over Ron Paul. In other words, despite all his brilliance, Chomsky is a commie
Chomsky and Herman on Cambodia
By Barfield, Michael at Dec 27, 2007 10:20 AM
As with many attacks on Chomsky over Cambodia, no reference is made to actually published material - why drag Murray Rothbard into it? I think the two most important pieces by Chomsky on the Khmer Rouge were both written with Ed Herman, although it is generally only Chomsky who is attacked. The first is a Nation book review article, "Distortions at Fourth Hand," at
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
which complains that a book (by Hildebrand and Porter) that had some favorable things to say about KR Cambodia was ignored or attacked, and has criticisms of books that are sharply ciritcal of the KR. The other is the book "After the Cataclysm," the preface to which is at
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=82227151
which quoted Sihanouk saying favorable (and critical) things about the KR, and argued that the KR must have had some popular support - for example:
"It is also beyond question that the entire population was compelled to share the lives of the poorer peasants. ... [This] is an atrocity by Western standards, though it is worth noting that the peasants may not regard it as an atrocity if others are compelled to live as they do, just as it is unclear how much they miss the opportunity to have vacations in France [reference to a remark by Sihanouk]."
Both are worth reading, in order to understand how just seeking to be objective about an official enemy can get you attacked for supporting it.
[I removed the links I had placed above, because they still don\'t seem to work in comments.]
Reply this comment
By Oyler, Nathan at Dec 26, 2007 19:20 PM
Everything I\'ve read from that site has been logically really terrible stuff. This is no different.
Reply this comment