To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The Vietnam "Virus"

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The Vietnam "Virus"

By Noam Chomsky at Mar 01, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The issue that concerned planners from the 1950s was the usual one: independent nationalism in Vietnam might prove successful in terms meaningful to others in the region facing similar problems, and the "virus" might spread, "infecting" others, in Thailand, Malaya, sooner or later Indonesia, which was regarded as the second-most important domino. The most important domino (the "superdomino," as Asia historian John Dower described it) was Japan, which might decide to "accommodate" to a more or less independent South East Asia, perhaps linked at least loosely to China, becoming the industrial, technological, and commercial center of a "New Order in Asia," independent of the US. That would have meant that the US would have effectively lost World War II in the Pacific, which was fought in large part to block that outcome. That intolerable consequence was prevented, very efficiently, by the rational means of destroying the virus of potential successful economic development in Vietnam, and "inoculating" the region, often by the support of brutal and vicious military dictatorships, including Indonesia, after the failure of Eisenhower's efforts to break off the outer islands (where most of the wealth is) in 1958. That's a very considerable victory, and the US corporate system has gained enormously from it -- which, incidentally, includes China. ...[Quite] a different matter: that US control is not complete, which is certainly true. That's the case with every system of dominance and control. And the US victory in Vietnam (solidified later, as Vietnam succumbed to the neoliberal order) is quite a separate matter from the place of China in the world system now developing. If anything, the US victory in Vietnam imposed constraints on China's potential power.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (93)

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 27, 2005 18:37 PM
Listen, the point is to compare America not to some utopian entity but to other countries. What has America done that other great powers have not? When one looks at all the good America has done and compare that to other countries you will see that the USA comes out smelling like a rose. That's reality. In 1936 most Americans believed the federal gov over the state gov was the way to solve problems; fast forward to 2000 and now its reverse with most believing in states. Americans also overwhemingly are anti-gay marriage, pro death penalty in short, a conservative country. Most are apolitical as well and in the center. We are happy with the lifestyle we have and will not find reason to change it. Again this is reality. Americans have no need for revolution nor radical change.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 22, 2005 23:16 PM
There will be no way especially if people like Chomsky, Albert et al never even FIGHT for any kind of Left political alternative to begin with. My point is, not for the Radical Left to necessarily win; but to grow, take local power perhaps, raise the consciousness and perhaps lay the seeds for a future revolution depending on how events turn out. Electoral politics are not the only way one takes power. On the USSR, again, whether or not *you* personally view it that way is a different matter and does not change the fact that it's demise worked to demoralize huge portions of the Left and Left organizations in general. Just read the International Socialist Review for more on that. Sharon Smith is a good source, as is Bob Avakian. Also, have you read Independent Vice-Presidential candidate Peter Camejo's fiery denunciation of Norman Soloman?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 22, 2005 06:53 AM
Unfortunately, that "less bad option" will be the excuse for leftists that use election after election. Therefore giving support to a Democratic Party instead of using that support to create a real Left political force in America, which would be much more useful. By Chomsky, Albert, ect not only backing Kerry but doing so without trying to change/modify his stances, by just supporting him with no strings attached, with no pressure on any of his right wing views, it was self-defeating and demoralizing the Left in America. What the "lesser evilism" Left doesn't understand is that movement cannot be created in a day, nor can they just be called upon to stay quiet one second (during the 2004 campaign for Kerry) and then light up again right after it. Movements thrive on momentum, the anti-war movement had a great deal of momentum coming off of the giant protests of 2003 but then was entirely deflated after the Left by and large supported the Pro War Kerry without any stipulations. And of course it matters who is in power, the Left needs to take power in order to create radical change. And on the relevance of the USSR: "This decline accelerated after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, throwing many organizations into crisis—because so many on the organized Left agreed with the mainstream media's conclusion that the fall of the Soviet Union marked the “victory of capitalism over socialism.” by Sharon Smith

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 21, 2005 20:34 PM
Don't even get me started on the Democratic Party. Maybe it's just because I knew how things were in the 60s but to see people like Chomsky and Albert and all the rest line up right behind the pro war, pro "free trade", pro corporate capitalist and pro everything else John Kerry is just ridiculous and higly disappointing. 40 years after 68 and the Left is reduced to being a cheerleader for the most right wing Democratic Party I have seen in my lifetime. It seems that the Left will be forever in the position of backing the "lesser of two evils" Democrats no matter how right wing they are. I can't believe that after all the hope and all the idealism of the 60s we've turned into this. I was reading Thomas Frank for in stance and he was talking about how during the Democratic Convention he saw heroes of the 60s being courted by weapons manufacturers. It's just a real shame. The Left in America has betrayed itself. It's a shadow of what it once was. I blame Gorbachav and the fall of the USSR for demmoralizing the Left along with the rise of Reagan fascism and Christian fanatics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 16, 2005 23:24 PM
"Anyone who sees the current far-right Democratic Party as "too left" seems extemely right wing to me." You think that Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy are "far-right"??? Geez....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 14, 2005 20:28 PM
OK let's play the game. Ortega - Liberator & Hero Castro - Liberator & Hero Mao - Liberator & Criminal Che - Liberator & Hero Lenin - Liberator & -In Dispute- Kim - Tyrant & Criminal Agreed? The point is that all these men maybe with the exception of Kim has brought a great deal of good onto its people. All have their own pockets of support within the Left, I find it is not wise to play the game of the Fascists, like the Cuban Americans in Miami, and divide up the Left in this way. Let's all try to accept the heroes and rebels of the twentieth century for who they are, not saints but men who liberated others and leave it at that. Denouncing them doesn't help matters. Call it the Ward Churchill stance.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 14, 2005 08:05 AM
So you are accusing Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro of being war criminals? Well then I guess we can go down the list all the way then. From Ortega and the Sandinistas, Mao Zedong, Kim Jung Il... But if you ask me, Ho Chi Minh was a liberator and a great man ditto with Fidel. BTW, Che is considered a war criminal and a murderer by many. Read what the fascist Cuban Americans from Miami who were trying to ban stores from selling Che T-shirts have to say about him: "Who was Che Guevara? Che was a Marxist solider who aided the Cuban revolution. He advocated the philosophy of communism which is responsible for over 100 million murders and he personally supervised the executions of scores of people himself. One of Che's famous quotes was "Hatred is an element of struggle; relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 14, 2005 07:43 AM
To Roger the Anti Chomsky: No one is saying that the U.S. is all bad. In World War II arguably our finest hour, we did liberate a few countries including France and Japan and yes good things did arise such as democracy. However that in no way excuses all the pain and suffering that was done in places like Greece and Italy. Get some history and get a clue. Then we'll talk. To Grame - "The whole point of being a radical is to fight for better conditions for "the masses." Yes that's correct; however I believe that the masses need to guided by intellectuals into better conditions for them as they do not know what they want or what is best for them. I refer to the re-election of this moron GW Bush and the increasing power of the Republican Party as recent and rather stunning examples.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 12, 2005 05:05 AM
forgot to add religious dogma. put that in there. these idiotic stone age religions with these backward social policies. guiding millions upon millions of people. religion is the enemy of the real left but instead you see liberal democrats trying to appeal more and more to the fundies. i just cant believe that 40 years after the 60s we've come down to this. come down to a political whore like hillary clinton going more and more to the right. and you know its gonna happen. you know all the anti war organiziations and all the left wing groups are gonna get behind her saying we need to defeat the republicans. and you know, the republicans are probably worse no doubt but im sorry, its just not something i can get very enthusiastic about. as for Lenin again if you call him a war criminal then i guess you can call every radical who ever achieved power in the third world a 'war criminal' from fidel castro to che guevara to ho chi minh they all have been accused by reactionaries of being murderers and war criminals and all that jazz. but radicals know them as heroes and liberators. my point is no matter who your favorite is the masses need to be lead by someone, they are too stupid and too lazy and too indocrinated to do anything revolutionary or radical on their own. sad but true.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 12, 2005 04:59 AM
there really is no point in debating with these people. the masses are a joke. they are stupid sheep. give them football mtv and fill their bellies with McDonalds and you will find an apolitical population with no ideological or deep political thought. its just human nature i guess, a very sad part of human nature. go to the mall and youll find middle america at its finest: massive consumerism without a care in the world for anything else. History? Geography? The world outside the US? nah, just lemme know where the sale is. Or if your a man: when can we go home to watch the game?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 11, 2005 23:18 PM
"As an anarchist, Chomsky is..." Sorry, couldn't help myself. One last point and then I'm gone. Here's what Chomsky had to say about the federal government: "I think it needs to be strengthened" Some anarchist. In fact, Chomsky has been taken to task for his false anarchist views by a real anarchist, (also a nativist) John Zerzan: "Reading through his many books and interviews, one looks in vain for the anarchist, or for any thorough critique. When asked point-blank, "Are governments inherently bad?" his reply (28 January 1988) is no. He is critical of government policies, not government itself, motivated by his "duty as a citizen." The constant refrain in his work is a plea for democracy: "real democracy," "real participation," "active involvement," and the like. Why, as a supporter of anarchist ideals, he is in favor of strengthening the federal government. The real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 11, 2005 22:50 PM
And finally, I see there there is no point in continuing this discussion any further. It is hopeless. You are so full of Communist/Chomsky propaganda it's not even funny. This will be my last post on this thread so there is no need to respond back. I will now close with this little tidbit: "I have KNOWN Noam Chomsky personally for more than thirty years. I have debated him on numerous occasions, and he is a zealous anti-Zionist and has had numerous flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial." (caps added) - Alan Dershowitz I rest my case.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 11, 2005 22:43 PM
Two Things: 1. Hate to break it to you, but Nazi Germany was really left wing. Know what NSDAP stands for? National SOCIALIST Workers Party. Hitler was a socialist, one of a different type maybe, but he was anti-capitalist, anti-American and was really a big government left winger. 2. Don't assume that everyone who dislikes Chomsky are extremely rightists. Many are not. I for one, while I voted for President Bush in 2004 because the Democrats are moving so far to the Left, becoming the Michael Moore-John Kerry-Ted Kennedy Democratic Party instead of the moderate, patriotic types in the past. However, I could definitely see myself voting for someone like Christopher Hitchens, Joe Lieberman or any number of those on the Left that are moderate/liberal on social views, but a hawk on foreign affairs and unapologetically patriotic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 11, 2005 21:38 PM
"Can, I don't know, say, China afford to ignore the "strategically vital" area of the Panama canal, or the Gulf of Mexico? Should it then station ships there?" Sir, I am an American. I view things, unapologetically from a pro-American standpoint and an American point of view. I don't equate America with any other country in the world and certainly not corrupt Communist dictatorships like in China. The US IS the leader of the free world and the Middle East is vital not only to the US gov but to its citizens as well. Do you drive a car? Well, Noam Chomsky does. And please stop comparing America with Nazi Germany. That is really offensive to me and every other patriotic American. As for Iraq, I will give you a quote from an Iraqi citizen. This is from a BBC report which you can find here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4420933.stm "Like most of the people in the new Iraq, we have hope for the future. Although things are still bad, we never had hope under Saddam. Whether we like to admit it or not, it's all down to President Bush. If it was not for him, we would not be looking to the future."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 11, 2005 21:29 PM
And by the way, this article doesen't even begin to talk about how heinous and sinister Chomsky's involvement was with Cambodia. There were about a dozen books written on Pol Pot and Cambodia during that time, of them, only 1 of the 12 had a positive and uncritical spin on Pol Pot. Guess which one Chomsky relied on? Of course, Chomsky being the master propagandist that he is, will always be able to deflect any criticism because while his criticisms of US actions are clear and vulgar, his support for left wing totalitarian regimes are much more subtle. For example he doesn't say outright, "I support Pol Pot, I support Mao" but he will say things like "Many things have been happening in Cambodia which are quite positive, very good steps, brave people resisting the US..." so that when confronted he can just say how he was talking about achievements in regards to this and that and not giving the regime overall approval. This strategy works among sympathetic ears in the far Left, but make no mistake, Noam Chomsky is a linguist expert and he uses language very, very cleverly. He knows what he is doing and by his subtle compliments, he is giving de facto support to brutal, vicious regimes that are responsible for tens of millions of people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 11, 2005 21:19 PM
"In December 1967, while participating in a forum in New York, he said that in China "one finds many things that are really quite admirable", and that "China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step." [5] (http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm) Chomsky spoke of his "admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society". (http://www.no-treason.com/Starr/3.html) Much of the early accounts of Khmer Rouge atrocities was documented by François Ponchaud, in his book Cambodia Year Zero published in 1977. After several favourable reviews in the US media, Chomsky began to critically write about what he saw as the media's slanted coverage of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky and Ed Herman wrote Distortions at Fourth Hand for the Nation Magazine in 1977. Distortions at Fourth Hand is criticized for relying heavily on Khmer Rouge sources and Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, by George Hildebrand and Gareth Porter. Porter and Hildebrand's work is notable for its largely uncritical and sympathetic treatment of the Khmer Rouge."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 11, 2005 21:13 PM
OK, you asked for it. Here are some quotes from your hero, Noam Chomsky and his support for totalatarian regimes for all to see: "Chomsky was more positive in his assessment of Communist movements in Asia. In a 1968 essay, "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship", Chomsky praised aspects of the Chinese and Vietnam communist revolutions, noting "certain similar features" with the Spanish anarchist movement of the 1930s (which he greatly admires)"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 10, 2005 19:47 PM
"they oppose backing and arming oppressive feudal despots,like the US government did for years" Figured you would mention this. OK, so there was a war between two evil regimes: Iraq under Saddam vs.Iran under the Ayatolah. The US supported the lesser of the two evils in Saddam. That's in the past. What is the problem? Again, the world is not a fairy tale. The US could not have not taken a side in a strategically vital area of the world like the Middle East. We had to take a side. No room for isolationism. Now in this situation today,not going back, 20,30, or however many years you'd like to go back in time to,but in the situation we are dealing with right now, what would Chomsky and the Left do? We can't go back in time. We have to deal with the world as it is right now. The choices were to do nothing or to remove two brutal reactionary feudal regimes. We chose to do the latter. The Radical Left just whines and complains about things but really does not offer any solutions. "If you support Saddam you're bad and if you overthrow him you're still bad!" We just can't win! It seems there is nothing the US can do to please the Radical Left. Most Americans understand our foreign policy and why we do what we do. Most Americans understand that hard decision must sometimes be made and the world is no utopia. The Radical Left doesn't. Which is why the Radical Left will always be a small minority in America.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 10, 2005 19:15 PM
"The fact is that US intervention around the world has been pretty much universally unnecessary, unjustifiable, and often, counterproductive." No. US intervention has largely resulted in democracy, freedom, and prosperity for its people. Look at one of Chomsky's favorite examples: Latin America. Sure we had to support a few unsavory characters in order to prevent Communist takeover, but look at the situation now. Every single country in Latin America is a democracy. Except for one of course: Cuba. "All the states you mention have been extremely repressive," Yes. And all have, at one time or another, been lauded and praised by Chomsky and other Lefties as "the threat of a good example", wonderful country, humanitarian etc. Need I quote from the likes of Paul Robeson, Helen Keller, John Reed who praised the Soviet Union? Sometimes during Stalin's worst atrocities? Need I go over the love affair with Fidel Castro? Herbert Matthews, Naomi Klein, Norman Mailer, etc? Chomsky and China under Mao? Hopefully I will not have to. "It should also be noted that the limited democratic reforms Iraq does have occurred DESPITE American wishes" That's really tired. How many times has President Bush mentioned democracy when dealing with the Middle East? How many times has he mentioned that one of the major goals of the administration was/is to spread democracy and liberty?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 10, 2005 18:56 PM
"Speaking of France, the US actually used Nazi advisors to help them weed out the communists there, as they did in Italy and Greece" Where would you rather live in: US-liberated Western Europe or Soviet-"liberated" Eastern Europe? I wonder why. So Stalin's goons came over to France and Greece and other countries and tried to install a Communist-Stalinist takeover of that country. Tried to install a brutal, repressive dictatorship. The US opposed this and instaed made those countries safe for democracy, freedom, liberty and prosperity. This makes us the bad guys in your eyes. The truth is that the US did nothing wrong with prevening the truly evil regime of Josef Stalin from spreading its misery to even more people. And again, with "Nazi advisors", the US were forced to temporarily ally with unsavory characters to prevent further tyranny by Stalin and establish democracy. Would we have preferred to use saints and church boys instead? I'm sure we would. However, those were the choices at that time and if you asked the people of France, etc, if they'd rather live under Soviet domination or Western democracy, I think you and I both know what they would say. "Seems to me, like Malcolm X said" Malcolm X was a vicious racist who even appluaded the assasination of President Kennedy. I fail to see how he is some type of "moral giant" to be quoted from, but then again, I'm not the one that has to go around explaining why they supported Pol Pot as Chomsky did.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 10, 2005 18:45 PM
"So basically, your moral argument is..." There you go again. Why do I need a "moral" argument when dealing with foreign policy? As I said, the world is a complex place. There are no easy answers. When dealing in terms of real power, sometimes decisions which may run counter to one's own personal morals must be made for the greater good. You may not want to believe that fine. You may think the world is just a fairy tale where everyone can live happily ever after with no such things as power and greed and tyranny. I however, do not. The world needs leadership and I would say to you that have ANY other country had had the power that the US has right now, that they would use it FAR more aggressive than we have done. "The US military has, on occasion, freed people from oppression," Funny. Don't think you can say that "on occasion" about the USSR. However, that doesn't stop you from saying: "In many respects the US was worse than the USSR," Which must explain why Noam Chomsky is a very wealthy man by critisizing the US while if he had done the same in Russia, depending on what period we're talking about, he'd either be in jail or facing a firing squad. Which also must explain the sea of American's fleeing tyranny by going to the USSR...oh wait...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 09, 2005 23:10 PM
Iraq - Liberated. Freed from dictatorship, a cruel brutal dictatorship. The Iraqi people oh so bravely stood up against fear of death and exerted their god given freedoms. Now, there is a government CHOSEN and ELECTED by the Iraqi people. I'm still waiting to hear Chomsky praise of that. Ditto with Afghanistan and the undeniably brutal and repressive Taliban regime. As Lefty Christopher Hitchens likes to say, you know, there was a time when the Left used to be about liberating people from oppression and backward feudal despots. Not anymore I suppose. The fact is, that if people like Noam Chomsky were in charge, Iraq and Afghanistan would still be under reactionary regimes.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 09, 2005 23:02 PM
"it's imperialist aggression is bad, victimizing innocent people (wherever they live) is evil, and the West tends to engage in these immoral behaviours, as power predicts." Look, in the REAL world not everything is so cut and dry. Sometimes, outside of progressive fairy tales, one must choose between the lesser of two evils. That's what the Cold War was about. Can we agree that the Soviet Union was worse than the US? That the US military HAS indeed freed people from oppression and give them democracy and liberty? Thinking WWII, France, Germany, Japan, the Marshall Plan,etc. The fact is, that there is NO progressive government anywhere in the world (Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Libya, take your pick) that has resulted in liberty, freedom and prosperity for its people. None. All have resulted in repression and at times severe repression. How can Chomsky and the Left not see that? Now, does this mean that ALL US military operations are justified? Of course not. But do we understand why it happens and how, while far from perfect, certainly the lesser of two evils? Yes.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 05, 2005 18:16 PM
Again, the message is clear: West Bad. West Immoral. Western intellectuals Bankrupt. Third World: Good. I can go on: "There was no Western concern for human rights, when there's a profit to be made." "Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the Third World, and it is a privilege, seeing their bravery and their courage in day-to-day life.." "There is a very striking similarity between Leninist and Western liberal doctrine on this, they're almost interchangeable" Listen, I can go on and on and on. I can fill up pages and even write a book about it. For any mild student of Chomsky not to see the obvious messages implicit in Chomsky's writing: West Bad, West Evil, West Imperialist, Western Aggression, West Immoral versus Third World Victim, one must be smoking something pretty strong.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 05, 2005 17:27 PM
"but no one I have ever talked to or read on ZNET has ever been taught to "idolize the third world" Well then you haven't been reading very closely. Or at least between the lines. They may not say it outright, but to any reasonable person, they give a pretty strong implication. Why is it that Chomsky only talks about bad things done by Western countries against the third world? Why is it always the third world that is the victim? Does Chomsky ever talk about how reactionary and brutal third world countries can be? Here are some quotes from Chomsky: "And although the narrow ideological constraints of elite Western culture protect us from these visions, Third World observers are quite capable of perceiving the savage retribution visited upon those who step on the toes of the master: Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, indeed anyone who does not understand that "What We Say Goes," in the President's fine words." "As Third World observers have no difficulty in perceiving, the "ominous halo of hypocrisy" can rise beyond any imaginable level without posing a serious challenge for the cultural commissars of the West."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 05, 2005 07:02 AM
With regards to Lenin, who many Russians regard as the greatest human being who ever lived thus there are still thousands of Lenin statues all over Russia to this day, I don't see anything wrong with overthrowing the oppressive, reactionary Czar regime and fighting back the foreign invaders and the monarchist/reactionary forces that resisted the Soviets during the Russian Civil War. It must be remembered that Stalin and Lenin were political enemies. Lenin had even publicly denounced Stalin and endorsed Trotsky. Afterwards, the two were not even on speaking terms. There is no doubt in my mind that the Soviet Union would have turned out much differently had Lenin lived or, better yet, if Trotsky had succeeded him.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 05, 2005 06:52 AM
Food for Thought: Here's something interesting, a post I just came across accidentally echoing very similar concerns about Chomsky. Comment by bernardo posted on Tuesday, February 01 at 09:05 PM Chomsky like most left/liberals really has no understanding of the American public, he has an ideal but it bears little resemblance to the reality. Where does he think the "sons & daughters" who committed sexual atrocities in the middle east (and apparently continue to do so) come from? Or the cops? Or the FBI? There might be a "tremendous amount to be hopeful about" in the genteel conversation at the Cambridge Forum, or the polite debate in the studios of "public" television but one does not gain an accurate picture of the American public from such rarefied regions. The American people are homicidal maniacs. But the American left/liberal can't admit that fundamental reality because then they destroy themselves. Also who are these mysterious "elites" that keep cropping up in Chomsky's writings? Does he think the advertising on the Superbowl for example are being sold to "elites"? These are the most expensive commercials being made. PS Albert looks like a real Hockey lout.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 05, 2005 04:33 AM
What we need is a vanguard of intellectuals that will defend the working class not only from capitalist demons but from themselves as well. Yes, unfortunately Lenin was right: the masses are not ready for socialism or any other responsible form of government. That was true in backward Russia as it is true in technology-loving America. As much as you may try to deny it, there are far far more realpc's and Roger the Anti Chomsky's of the world than honest, decent, intelligent and compassionate people interested in social justice.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Matrix4, Appleman at Apr 05, 2005 04:07 AM
Why bother talking to these people? Seriously, if there is one criticism to make of Professor Chomsky, it's that he is way too naive into thinking that most Americans would care at all about crimes largely committed on dark-skinned people with funny last names who speak weird languages. The American people, I'm sorry to say, are largely sheep. They're too busy watching survivor and playing playstation 2 to be bothered with silly things like genocide and a highly destructive US foreign policy. Take a look at the re election of this moron GW Bush. Moral Values? A war started on false reasons? Corporate capitalism? Empire and plunder? This is the "Moral values" President? Excuse me while I throw up. I am becoming more and more convinced in Lenin's theory about a group of progressive intellectuals running the show. The masses are largely stupid, lazy, prone to fundamentalist garbage from stone-age monotheistic religions and a coporate sensationalist media whose main function is to advertise, not educate. I fear for my country, but in a way, you reap what you sow.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 05, 2005 00:04 AM
"Nothing like slagging a guy who has devoted his entire life to uncovering and exposing horrific human rights abuses" Chomsky is a complete fraud and hypocrite who has devoted his life to uncovering and exposing human rights abuses that fit into his own Left-Wing/Hate America agenda. In the words of a Vietnamese immigrant who appeared in the movie: "He has poisoned the mind of the world" "Why didn't anybody think of that before?" Because Chomsky only gets interviewed by David Barsamian-types who only ask softball questions. Even many Lefties have refuted and attacked him (Alan Dershowitz, Christopher Hitchens,etc). But I understand your dilemma. You see, the Far Left is taught to idolize the third world and condemn the Western world (which by the way, is much more progressive but they will never admit that) so when I say that Vietnamese immigrants love America they don't know what to do! They cannot attack the Vietnamese, as they are of the third world and supposedly fighting on their behalf,so they must find a way to attack me for saying it! Just answer me this: if America is so bad and committed so many human rights violations in Vietnam, why have MILLIONS emigrated here? (And millions more who desperately want to) The US isn't the only country one can make a decent living in. Why not Japan or Australia? They're much closer. Why go all the way to the belly of the beast that has brought so much misery to your country?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 04, 2005 22:53 PM
Me: Hey Noam! (Trembles in the presence of the Almighty Chomsky) How are you doing today? Chomsky: Fine. Me: That's great! You know, I really don't want to ask you this (chuckle, chuckle) but what do you think about those protestors outside? NC: Well, that's fine. I've always supported the right of people to protest. People want to protest, OK fine. Now I'd like to talk about US support of Contras and the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua Me: Wow! How original! That's great Noam! Oh Ahh, I've just been told that a giant meteor is about hit planet Earth in 5 minutes! NC: Yes, well, as I was saying in Nicaragua the US showed its support of human rights by... AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Boom. The End. On second thought, maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 04, 2005 22:47 PM
Oh yea, one more thing. I'm sure most of you Chomskyites have seen the movie "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media." Well, remember that part where a group of Vietnamese immigrants started protesting the appearance of Noam Chomsky and some even stated how they were going to burn Chomsky's books in protest?? Isn't it strange how the film just passed by these protestors like they were nothing? (If this was a right wing film, this would be called racism, but that's for another day) No comment. Nothing. You would think they would stop for a second and think, "Hmm. Wait a minute. This doesn't make sense. Noam Chomsky is telling us what horrible things the US did in Vietnam, and here are Vietnamese themselves protesting. And WHO are they protesting?? Not Nixon. Not Kennedy. BUT NOAM CHOMSKY!! The very same person who is supposedly trying to defend them! Let's ask Noam why this is!" But no! That was too much for them! So we went right back to Softball Interviews 101 with David Barsamian. Sigh. I wish I had the job of David Barsamian! Ask softball questions to left wing ivory tower intellectuals, write books about it, and become a left wing hero! I could do it too you know! Watch this:

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 04, 2005 22:10 PM
(cont) all this to live not in Japan, not in Australia, but in AMERICA! The Great Satan! The country that brought all this supposed misery onto them!! Can Chomsky or the Left please explain that to me? In fact, when I asked one Vietnamese how many people came to America, do you know what her response was? "The lucky ones" They Lucky ones!! That's the response from a Vietnamese woman who risked death by escaping Commmunist, Chomsky/Left wing-backed barbarism by entering the country the Left loves to hate! Wouldn't you think this would be the LAST country she would want to go to? If Chomsky or the Radical Left is correct about HALF the things they say about US actions in Vietnam, don't you think that they would rather DIE than enter the belly of the beast, America?? And it's not just Vietnamese! Cuban Exiles? Same thing. Love of America. Love of freedom. Traditional, conservative and mostly Republican. You know, speaking of tradition, it's funny. The Left loves to talk about "backward Americans, redneck Americans" and what not when referring to social conservatives. Every try talking to an Asian immigrant about his/her feeling on gay marriages or gay culture in general? An African immigrant? Mexican one? Try it. See what happens. That "redneck" American you so deride will look like John Lennon.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By The, Roger at Apr 04, 2005 21:55 PM
First off, Noam Chomsky is a complete fraud. Here's a guy that goes around preaching hate America nonsense while living and working (and profiting) at MIT of all places (a well known elitist school) as a tenured professor, a multinational bestselling author, someone who obviously is in the upper middle class bracket if not in the wealthy. Someone who lives the good life in a "bourgeouis" cozy, upper middle class, lily-white suburb in Massachusetts. That's Noam Chomsky. Preaching against the American system and all its evils by profiting off it. On Vietnam. I know many Vietnamese immmigrants on a personal level. Does Chomsky or any of the other ivory tower intellectuals ever get down to actually speak with them? Do you know what they tell me? Remember, these are people who actually LIVED during the period that Chomsky speaks of, they have LIVED and seen with their own two eyes what their country went though. Know what what they tell me? How much they LOVE America! How thankful they are to live in America! How appreciative they are of US efforts during the Vietnam war. Stories of unbelievable courage of how they risked their lives going on rickety boats, swam over shark-infested waters, and risked being captured by the brutal Viet Cong,

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 04, 2005 15:36 PM
We have to know something about ancient history to understand contemporary politics and human nature, but we should also know about anthropology and tribal cultures. Our species is very flexible but there are limits. A lot of stuff is built in and we need some idea of what can be improved and what we have to live with. Primitive tribes are, I think, humans in their most natural state.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 06:50 AM
Sometimes when I read ancient history, though, I am amazed hopw relevent it is in many ways. It's all the same stuff over again. The Pelopanesian War is filled with speeches you could find, almost verbatim, from the Cold War. Two "superpowers", at the height of their power, battling it out, sometimes directly, but more often through client city-states. The politics of Athens, with the demogauges and chicken-hawks, was not unlike the more extreme partisans of US and USSR.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 05:51 AM
"That's why I said "supposedly". " I'm sorry, I wasn't "correcting" you. I just find the Tai Peng rebellion to be fascinating because of the mixture of philosphies that went into it, and the VERY peculiar nature of it's leader (he wan an odd ball). "BTW, you appear to be very well read and eloquent. I am impressed." TY. You too. I'm a big history fanatic but I imagine we all are to some degree. I tend to like older history and more obscure history, because it gets less political spin. 20th century history is a must-know, but it does get tiring of all the different angles people try to put on it in order to make a political point today.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 04, 2005 05:49 AM
"I think that some of them, at least, were likely real believers, but experienced Cognative Dissonance and ended up rationalizing their murderous ways within the paramters of Marxism (class struggle, the threat of counter-revolution) - in the same way that the Crusaders and Inquisitors rationalized their murders within the parameters of Christianity " There is a difference between someone who truly believes that he is Napolean and Napolean. That are many true believers in the nut houses but there is only one Napolean.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 05:38 AM
"A lot of third world revolutions have been brewing because of the history and internal conflicts in these societies. Marxism was just a convenient banner. If Marx did not exist they would have appropiated other philosophies." I agree with you. The only thing I disagree with is the automatic assumption that NONE of the bigtime communist dictators were really communist. From what I know about human psychology I think that some of them, at least, were likely real believers, but experienced Cognative Dissonance and ended up rationalizing their murderous ways within the paramters of Marxism (class struggle, the threat of counter-revolution) - in the same way that the Crusaders and Inquisitors rationalized their murders within the parameters of Christianity ( better to burn for a few minutes on earth than for an eternity in hell).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 04, 2005 05:37 AM
"IT was "based" on Christianity, but you must understand that Hong (the leader) never even read the Bible " That's why I said "supposedly". But this is exactly my point. Hong was about as Christian as Mao was Marxist. You see, Mao hadn't read any Marx either, except for a few chapters from a very poorly translated edition of the communist manifesto.He admitted this very freely. When he was asked to name the books were most influential on his thinking. He cited two books, both Chinese classics. BTW, you appear to be very well read and eloquent. I am impressed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 05:25 AM
IT was "based" on Christianity, but you must understand that Hong (the leader) never even read the Bible. He was converted by the words of missionaries, and when his main tutor died he had a feverish vision and woke up thinking he was the brother of Christ. He had been a "Christian" for less than a few years. His vision of Christianity was heavily influenced by Confusian values. For instance, in heaven he met God's wife. He also met Jesuses wife and family. He also took their appearances as real appearances. When a group of Jesuits wanted to meet him, he made them take a test to determine if they were real Christians. Some of the Questions were like "What color is God's beard?". When the Jesuits answered "Well, any color he wants it to be", Hong sen back a sternly worded reply informing them that God had a blonde beard and that a true Christian would know this.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 05:20 AM
"Tai Ping rebellion in China in the mid 1800's shared a lot of ideological features with the Communist revolution but it was supposedly based on Christianity. Their leader was a Mao like character who claimed to be Jesus' brother." Check out "God's Chinese Son". It is well written and incredibly informative. Over 20 million people died during that rebellion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 04, 2005 05:12 AM
(cont') But Craeme make an excellent point. A lot of third world revolutions have been brewing because of the history and internal conflicts in these societies. Marxism was just a convenient banner. If Marx did not exist they would have appropiated other philosophies. For example, the failed Tai Ping rebellion in China in the mid 1800's shared a lot of ideological features with the Communist revolution but it was supposedly based on Christianity. Their leader was a Mao like character who claimed to be Jesus' brother.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 04, 2005 05:11 AM
"The inherent problem with Marxism is, as I see it, is his idea of class. I have read enough of Marx to see how it would be VERY easy for a person to read his work and come away with a determination to kill Capitalists" But one can (and should, IMO) interprete "class" as a macro phenomenon and therefore should be seperated from the individual. Marx called for the elimination of the capitalist "class" but not the physical elimination of the "individual" capitalist. Some vulgar Marxists miss the point and confuse the two concepts. I don't think you can judge a philosophy harshly simply because some self declared "followers" cannot read.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 04, 2005 04:44 AM
So what if Lenin was "Marxist", you have as many variations of Marxists as there are "Christians", they all disagree on various things. This debate of who is a "Marxist" is getting silly. Marx made some very insightful analysis about capitalism and at the same time wrote a lot of bull shit non sense. This is true with all great thinkers. By definition, a great thinker inspires and influence many people but1)any well read person would not be influenced by just one writer 2)people bring in their own interpretations when they read based on their own experience. This whole idea of labeling others(or oneself) as Whoever-ist is idiotic. The question of who is a true disciple should happen only in religions. One should not assume that anyone expousing a leftish position is autoimatically "Marxist". The leftist tendency is way older than Marx and doesn't end with Marx.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 04:39 AM
Part of judging a philosophy is it's effect on it's followers in addition to it's message. The inherent problem with Marxism is, as I see it, is his idea of class. I have read enough of Marx to see how it would be VERY easy for a person to read his work and come away with a determination to kill Capitalists and their henchmen in the same way a person could read the Bible and then justify the Inquisition. Marx portrays, both directly and through his use of language, them as subhuman parasites in need to extermination - hardly a point of view that would lend itself of a peaceful transition of power.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 04:12 AM
Saying Lenin was not a Marxist because he didn't behave the way YOU think a Marxist should, is like a Christian saying "Christians don't kill people. The Crusaders did kill people, and that proves they were never Christians and only lied about it". I simply don't buy it. People are remarkably able to "believe" one thing and act against it - it is simply not true that Hypocricy is proof of ulterior motives or lack of belief.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 04, 2005 04:02 AM
"the forms of communism that were actually implemented in Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, China, etc... had very little to do with the form of communism described by Marx" I, nor any anti-communist I ever read, has said that any of the Communist countries was what Marx described. The argument, as I understand, has ALWAYS been that there is no way to acheive what Marx describes and that, in practice, totalitarianism is the only result that ever occurs in the real world. I have yet to heard a decent rebuttal to Hayeks argument (paraphrased following), which I think is very logical and self-evident: Any collectivist society must have "socially determined" rewards - ie, the relative pay for various jobs will be determined "Socially" by the people. This works fine as long as you have a solid majority in agreement on who deserves what. IF, however, no majority is found and no solid majority can agree on whom deserves what and if we insist on a collective system, the ONLY OPTION to pick one of the non-majority plans and implement it. By definition, since it is not a plan accepted by the majority, it must be imposed on them against their will.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 04, 2005 02:59 AM
as far as communism goes... the forms of communism that were actually implemented in Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, China, etc... had very little to do with the form of communism described by Marx...the actual communism was skewed by various other communists (Lenin, Stalin, Mao...) more or less to fit their purposes of obtaining absolute power...so even though they may have called themselves Marxists, Marx would have most likely hated them, as much as he despised the capitalists... Communism did have some attractive ideas, especially to post-colonial third world countries, where 1% of the population owned 99% of the wealth and land...communism redistributed the wealth among the poor, educated the masses, set up social systems (health care, education, retirement) and in a lot of cases (esp. Cuba), at least initially, improved the lives of the citizens greatly...Che became the symbol of such struggles - the ultimate martyr and fighter for the underdog...that's why people all over the world know of him and consider him to be a hero...he stood up to the superpower for the good of the people...and paid for it with his life...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 04, 2005 02:50 AM
MTbrad...precisely to the point. I feel that US government has reached a very dangerous level of self-praise and vanity when it decided that OUR form of government is BETTER than others, and then went further in deciding that we will make those others accept our form of government, whether they like it or not...and then we tell them (as we're bombing them and taking over their businesses and natural resources) that it's for their own good...it's like some kind of self-appointed abusive global father-figure...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 04, 2005 01:59 AM
This notion of the communists as the imposers of a world revolution obscures the fact that we are right now in this instance trying to impose a democratic-capitalist world revolution on the whole world. Why is it ok for one group to push their ideology and not for another?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Not_you_ese, Illiterateriffraff at Mar 03, 2005 22:05 PM
Got it. Point well taken.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 03, 2005 20:34 PM
"Im interested in hearing the reasons you consider the United States a democracy" I don't think I ever said the US was a "democracy", my personal view on democracy is that it is an unacheivable goal. That every country places itself on the continum of less democratic to more democratic. I would put the US somewhere in the middle, and getting worse. There is the theory "the iron law of olgarchy", which states that when newly formed states can act somewhat democratically but over time move away from democracy. In general I do not believe in represenitive democracy, to me it is on the lower end of the democracy spectrum.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Not_you_ese, Illiterateriffraff at Mar 03, 2005 10:26 AM
MTbrad- Im interested in hearing the reasons you consider the United States a democracy, aside from that being the general assumption. Im not saying you're wrong, but there are those, myself included, that feel differently. Again, this is in no way a challenge. Seeing as how we are both citizens here, I think both of our opinions are valid. In the event that Im totally misunderstanding you, I encourage you to point and make fun.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 03, 2005 08:04 AM
Realpc, you seem to associate anyone anti-capitalist with past stalinist historical systems. You must remember Russia had never seen democracy, we have and will never let it go. This does not mean that we need a capitalist system, it is just one of many options.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 03, 2005 08:01 AM
"But the danger of communism was, and is, somewhat unique in that its followers are utopian fanatics willing to resort to violence if necessary." Capitalists are different, they are not utopian (free markets, invisible hands etc.) They don't resort to violence to maintain their position. "the US founders distrusted power and recognized that human wisdom is and always will be limited." What about a communist or anti-capitalist system based on the same power limiting or power defusing philosophies. One based on expanding democracy beyond what we have now, so societal choices become individual level choices.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 03, 2005 07:55 AM
"The state will have its preferred citizens who get preferred treatment" If all are treated equally and have access to every thing they need, why would there be preferred treatment? If you think about the capitalist vs. communist(so called) killings, you can easily see that capitalist have been responsible for way more deaths. Like you said if you include the actions of stupid, or in this case greedy governments.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 03, 2005 07:52 AM
"There is no law against "subversive" media, and the fact we are here on ZNET proves he do have the option of reading anti-establishment media" Key words being "anti-establishment media" the second this ideas become mainstream you will see the back side of the invisible hand.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 03, 2005 07:51 AM
"Some degree of private ownership is necessary for freedom" Let's think about this, some degree huh, how do you limit it to some degree? Would this be a so called limit to business "freedom", to choose some things for private ownership and some for ownership by the people? Would'nt the people that own the private entities gain from owning them, which would lead to an attept to gain more ownership. Would this not lead to a privleging of some over others. How is this free?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 03, 2005 05:57 AM
" Or your bizarre anti-communist 'theories' for that matter?" Are you denying that the "goal" of communists was World Revolution? It was the stated aim of the Comintern for decades. Why do people celebrate Che, if not for his commitment to world revolution?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 03, 2005 05:51 AM
"If you think our thoughts and access to information are controlled, how do you explain this blog?" There is no law against "subversive" media, and the fact we are here on ZNET proves he do have the option of reading anti-establishment media. On the other hand, the owner of a news corporation DOES indeed control the news that comes through his network. He is in a position to show, or choose not to show, any fact available. Insofar as the executives and owners of the major networks have similar goals and interests they will, even without speaking, work together to control access to information. I think the total LACK of press about the 1996 Telecommunications act is a perfect example. A study of news broadcasts during the runup to the vote show that there was only a tiny number of news reports on the bill on the major networks, and almost all of them were vague and positive. Keep in mind, this was the bill that allowed the executives of these networks to purchase even more marketshare. It is simply Occams Razor to deduce that this self-censorship was due to the fact that the exectuives didn't want "contrary" news reports generating public opposition to the bill.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 03, 2005 05:32 AM
Sorry. Actually, that site sucks. They leave too much out - I should have read it more carefully.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 03, 2005 05:28 AM
"Capitalists have been responsible for *at least* as much (probably much more, but I'm not going to get into that at the moment) violence and destruction over the last century as the communists." Rudolph J. Rummel, "Death By Government" cites 169M "Democides" - Government inflicted deaths (1900-87). Of these 110M occured under communist regimes. Even if that seems high, the best estimates still place Stalin as directly esponsible for about 30-40M deaths and Mao about 30M-50M (depending if you include unintentional famine that was the result of moronic government policies). http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death Counts/Death Counts.htm Here we have a rather anti-US site ranking the number of US caused deaths at between 10M and 16M. Hardly even close.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 03, 2005 05:05 AM
"I suppose the Vietnamese people (those who survived) 'won,' in some sense, in that they drove out their American occupiers, but only at a devastating cost." They lost in a very big sence too. The National Liberation Front was dmoninated by the communists, but featured many other groups who opposed American involvement but who did not want South Vietnam to be absorbed by Communist North Vietnam. In fact, many NLF communists thought they were going to be allowed a substantial amount of autonomy by the North Vietnamese. Instead, after the 1975 takeover, all of the positions of power were filled by North Vietnamese appointees. Even the communist South Vietnamese were entirely excluded.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 03:18 AM
"how do you explain George W. Bush being elected last November?" There were various reasons, but it was not because our thoughts are controlled. A big part of it is the anti-Americanism, secularism, arrogance, and political correctness that people have started to associate with the left.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 03:09 AM
Some degree of private ownership is necessary for freedom. If you depend on the state for survival, you certainly won't feel free to criticize it. The state will have its preferred citizens who get preferred treatment. Even if all people were really nice and really well-meaning all the time, everyone likes their friends better than their enemies.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 03:05 AM
"Why? Why does collective ownership imply state control? What of the kibbutzim and successful collaborative experiments in Spain and elsewhere? " Communes are ok for some people, for a while. US citizens are perfectly free to form communes and workers' co-ops. But forcing it on everyone?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 02:50 AM
I am not a libertarian but I can sympathize, since I am a non-conformist and independent thinker. If I were forced to work in a commune and be politically correct, well I don't know what would happen. There are many other Americans like me, since we are accustomed to freedom. If you think our thoughts and access to information are controlled, how do you explain this blog?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 02:47 AM
Another important difference is private property. Without the ability to own property, (relative) independence of individuals is not possible. Group ownership, or government ownership, means compulsive conformity.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 02:44 AM
Marxism depends on rationalist faith, the idea that human reason and compassion can re-make the world to minimize suffering and injustice. This is not dramatically different from the liberal philosophy underlying the US constitution, except for a critical point -- the US founders distrusted power and recognized that human wisdom is and always will be limited. Some degree of chaos, unfairness and conflict is tolerated in the US system, because it is infinitely preferable to the tyranny that inevitably results from concentrated power.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 03, 2005 02:42 AM
OK...so communist beliefs did not work out perfectly in real life...did US capitalism? I mean this country is supposed to be the "model democracy" with "free speech" and "equality for all" and blah, blah, blah...but in reality maybe half of the population votes for twidle-dee or twidle-dumb...the media is owned by a few giant conglomerates who also happen to make large contributions to political campaings...and if you live in a city, please, drive through the ghetto and then we'll talk about equality...so in effect, US capitalists are just as utopian as communists...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 02:35 AM
The communist threat in the 1960s was real and to some extent the US just reacted in defense. Of course that over-simplifies because there are just as many jerks in the US as anywhere else on earth, as many hare-brained capitalists as hare-brained communists. But the danger of communism was, and is, somewhat unique in that its followers are utopian fanatics willing to resort to violence if necessary. And of course violence is always necessary since the rich and middle-class never politely hand over their possessions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 03, 2005 02:31 AM
"It is not because they didn't like communism or because it is evil, but because it was the only form of government (at the time) that could compete with US "capitalism" and challenge US domination." The communists were, and are, working towards a world revolution. There were, and are, many communists (also known as Marxists) in the US today. Chomsky can be included among the US citizens working towards the end of the current capitalist-socialist system, by violence if necessary. The replacement for the current system will be a utopia where everybody is nice.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 03, 2005 02:25 AM
"As for Vietnam not rebuilding, the place is about as free market oriented as you can get." You have obviously never been, it is not "free market", first no nation is "free market", second Vietnam has strict economic limits. For instance there are no supermarkets allowed in Vietnam, this is to conserve the local markets from outside preditory corporations.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 03, 2005 02:23 AM
d4d20 bombing rice fields as opposed to cities may produce less casualties per bomb, but you are underestimating the effects of bombing rice fields... when you bomb rice fields, you make them useless for food production and when there is no food to feed the population (aka: your enemy), you can stop bombing, because they will just starve to death...and between bombing of the food supply and spraying the remainder with Agent Orange, US destroyed large chunks of the population and large sectors of support for the Vietnamese resistance and the threat was not fully developed...you could say it was another "preemptive war" - we destroyed them before they fully developed into an industrial country and before they became a threat...sound familiar?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 03, 2005 02:17 AM
realpc...you should really look deeper into such complicated issues and question the official story every once in a while... yes...US (officially) wanted to "stop the spread of communism into SE Asia" and Vietnam was believed to be the "top domino" that (if successful) could lead to other countries turning towards communism...agree? OK, so US wanted to stop communism, but WHY? It is not because they didn't like communism or because it is evil, but because it was the only form of government (at the time) that could compete with US "capitalism" and challenge US domination. Hence, bombing Vietnam back to the stone age, succeeded in all of the "WHY" reasons...communism in SE Asia did not spread to EVERY country...Vietnam became an example of what may happen if a country accepts communism, instead of being an example of a successful socialist country. Communism was weakened and US "capitalism" triumphed - even though officially, we did not win the war

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Not_you_ese, Illiterateriffraff at Mar 03, 2005 00:41 AM
What does that mean? "...the place is about as free market oriented as you can get..."? Also, who are these "progressives" that youre talking about? Im not trying to be a pest, I just dont see what your point is. It seems to me that ones concern over WW2 or Vietnam would be better illustrated by criticizing those other than Chomsky or the so-called "progressives". Then again, I have no idea what your motives are.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Bok, Yakov at Mar 02, 2005 23:33 PM
Chomsky is showing incredible ignorance in saying that WWII was fought to prevent Chinese hegmony. Has he forgotten that the Japanese were busy raping China? As for Vietnam not rebuilding, the place is about as free market oriented as you can get. Why are "progressives" so distorted?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 02, 2005 22:20 PM
Graeme, I don't see anything wrong with baiting a trap for a beast. We never would have done it if we hadn't been certain that the Soviets were going to invade - so it was their own Imperial nature that traped them, whch is poetic justice from my point of view. You won't agree with me, but I think Afghanistan was justifiable payback for Soviet help to NV. Why should we play nice when they played to win? Why is it ok for them to help NV, but not ok for us to help the Mujahideeen? I think both were justified although, being a US citizen, I would have rather not helped NV, but I would have done the same thing in their shoes.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 02, 2005 12:20 PM
Edit: The communists overthrew the guy who overthrew the king in 1973. However, the rebellion did not break out until after the 1978 Soviet-backed communist coup. Before that, there were no rebels to arm.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 02, 2005 12:06 PM
"The U.S was arming the Islamicists before the Soviet invasion with the specific intent of drawing the Soviets in" This is disingenuous. While it was technically true, it is also true that we did not start arming rebels - because there were no rebels - until after the Soviet engineered overthrow of the Monarchy in the early 1970s. The Soviets only invaded after it was obvious that their proxy rulers could not handle the rebellion alone. You make it sound like America tricked them into the war - but they started it by interefering with the Afghan government to begin with. If they hadn't installed a puppet regime there would have been no rebels to arm.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 02, 2005 09:45 AM
"All the talk about 'defending' the South from the North was about as true as the later Soviet claims about their campaign to 'defend' Afghanistan from Afghan 'terrorists.' " Actually the Soviet claim was a bit more valid than the American's. The U.S was arming the Islamicists before the Soviet invasion with the specific intent of drawing the Soviets in. The Russians didn't lay a trap for the American in Vietnam. The Islamacists were terrorizing the country by carrying out atrocities such as beheading teachers who taught girls(before the Russian invaded.) Geographically Afghanistan was in the Southern belly of the Soviet union.The Soviet was more than a bit anxious about its own muslim population. There is no comparable threat to the U.S in the case of Vietnam. The Mujahedeen did kill Russian civilians in the border towns once the war broke out. The Vietnamese never wage war at U.s soil. This is not to justify the Russian invasion. But I don't think it is comparable to the U.S going half around the world to bomb some country into a cinder.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 02, 2005 06:42 AM
"Even Chomsky knows the US gov responded to public opinion about Vietnam. " Your point being? Is it that somehow the U.S government deserved a medal after committing horrendous war crimes just because it pulled out after a while when the administration decided this is costing them politically? Actually I think it is very strange that the opinions of the American public(who most of them sat comfortable at home) should have more weight than the opinions of the Vietnamese peasants who were being killed. You sure inhabit a very strange moral universe.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 02, 2005 06:32 AM
Two million Vietnamese died and their country turned into rumbles as a result of the U.S invasion. Meanwhile the number of American soldiers who died was less than the number of gun related homicidal deaths in the U.S in the same peroid.Not a single U.S building collapsed as the result of Vietnamese counter strike. If that is not "victory" I don't know what is. You can hardly think of a more asymetric "conflict".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Not_you_ese, Illiterateriffraff at Mar 02, 2005 05:53 AM
Not being able to ignore something doesnt determine the response. They couldnt ignore what was happening at Columbia, but that doesnt mean skulls didnt get cracked. They couldnt ignore the Panthers, that only lead to assinations. So, though one might not be able to ignore something, it doesnt mean youre going to get what you want. Remember that Vietnam lasted a really long time. The various movements had plenty of postive influences, but If anything, I only see them having a negative impact on government policy. There was a huge back-lash that lead to the culture wars. As to why North Vietnam was a threat? I dont know. It wasnt a threat to me, but the CIA was in there pretty quickly after the French were out of the picture. '53 to '75 is a long time. Im thinking one could do a pretty good job making sure that not much is accomplished in that period of time. They could have ended it before Nixon was elected, but Kissinger had his own agenda.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Mar 02, 2005 04:38 AM
I'm mostly knowledgable about the Vietname war through a military history perpective, so I'll have to look into this matter further before speaking with any conviction, but I have some serious doubts about this argument. Studies of the effectiveness of the bombing campaign in the north overwhelmingly state that it simply didn't seriously degrade Hanois ability to prosecute the war. The reason for this failure was the serious lack of industry and capital intensive targets in the North - hence the cliche about "bombing rice paddies". How was North Vietnam going to be a serious threat as a self-governing nation when it didn't have enough stuff to bomb? North Vietnam was a poor country, already battered by over 20 years of constant war and, by estimate, more than 5% of their country killed. Most countries in the situation would have a hard time simply providing basic needs for it's people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 02, 2005 04:21 AM
"an organized activist public can impose conditions that power simply cannot ignore. The Vietnam war, though a radically different situation, did once again support that conclusion." Even Chomsky knows the US gov responded to public opinion about Vietnam.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Not_you_ese, Illiterateriffraff at Mar 02, 2005 01:30 AM
No, it wanted to ensure that communism didnt take over south east asia. Vietnam just happened to be the top domino. As for what Marxists think happened, who cares? No one wants to use facts anyway. Russia fell and the US said, "see, look how great we are!" Then the Taliban said, "see, look how great we are!" Its really just a distraction. The reality is that the US doesn't have to worry about Vietnam. It did in 54, but it went there, bombed the hell out of it, and left. If anything you should know that the US did not pull out at the request of its people. What do you think this is, a democracy?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 02, 2005 00:38 AM
The US wanted to stop communism in Vietnam and it failed. The US gov complied with the desires of its citizens to give up and let the communists take over S. Vietnam. The result was, as usual, a Marxist economic failure, along with the usual internal violence. Marxists blame the failure of the USSR on the US also, which is rather a shock. But Marxists are remarkably committed to their ideology, to the extent that they manage to blame its repeated failures on the Great Scapegoat.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Not_you_ese, Illiterateriffraff at Mar 02, 2005 00:32 AM
Look at it in terms of what the U.S. was trying to prevent. Specifically it may have been the spread of Communism, but really it was about preventing any threat to the US global agenda. Look at how we left the place. It was in total chaos. Vietnam still hasn't recovered. Alot of mistakes were made, true, but that doesn't mean our goal wasn't met. The coldwar was about making sure we were the ones left running the show. Russia, Iran, Honduras, Guatamala, Cuba, Vietnam...They all had to go. The goals are the same today. Only now its a matter of maintenance. We run the show now so that means we don't have to answer to anyone. Not the UN, not the Geneva Converntions, not the ICC, not even the Constitution. There cannot be any question...

Reply this comment

Person

By Ragu6, Ragu at Mar 02, 2005 00:05 AM
Well said ap2k!!!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Mar 01, 2005 23:25 PM
Yes...realpc...the (US) intention of the Vietnam was to prevent economic and national development in Vietnam and if you know anything about the current situation in Vietnam, it is quite obvious that the US was victorious in destroying even the possibility of successful development - hence US victory!!!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Vietnam "Virus"

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Mar 01, 2005 22:14 PM
The US victory in Viet Nam????

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (93)

Loading_border