Chomsky and Third World liberation

Twenty years ago, after huge bipartisan votes in Congress to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa, Noam Chomsky gave an interview in which the following exchange took place:

Question: You would still uphold your admiration of the apartheid system as you did before?

[Noam Chomsky] As far as I am concerned, I do not pass judgement on what South Africans decide to do. I am in favour of South Africa's successful defiance of the United States. I am in favour of them taking matters into their own hands. Exactly how they carry it out… I have my own opinions. A lot of things I think are fine, a lot not, but it's a matter for the South Africans to decide. My concern is that the hemispheric superpower not resort to violence, pressure, force, threat, and embargo in order to prevent South Africans from deciding how to determine their own fate.

OK, this isn't strictly accurate in every last detail. Instead of 'apartheid system', the interviewer said 'Cuban system'; instead of 'South Africans', Chomsky said 'Cubans'. But apart from that detail, and the fact that it took place not 20 years ago but last Friday, the interview is exactly as I've stated it. It's now been published here (link via Ryan in Manchester, a blogger of whom I have spoken before and about whom I shall have more to say in a separate post).

I can see no moral distinction between the version I recounted and the one Chomsky gave, except that the political leadership of South Africa belatedly perceived the evil of apartheid whereas the leadership of Cuba remains resolute to this day in enforcing its own variant of tyranny. In April Cuba sentenced 76 dissidents to long gaol terms. Alluding to this persecution, the organisation Reporters Without Borders described the country as 'the world's biggest prison for journalists'. The European Union, not normally a body that slavishly follows US precedent, announced diplomatic sanctions.

Yet Noam Chomsky, who is sometimes mistaken by the impressionable as an advocate of liberty, tells us that he 'do[es] not pass judgement on what Cubans decide to do'. I don't know which is more dismaying: his silence about the crushing of dissent or his premise that the people of this totalitarian nightmare-state have the ability to 'determine their own fate'.

If Chomsky's normative judgements are perverse, his empirical ones are – I search for the most neutral word I can find in the circumstances – ahistorical. He asserts, for example:

Kennedy invaded Cuba and then launched Operation Mongoose leading right to the missile crisis which practically destroyed the world.

It is quite true that Kennedy proceeded with Eisenhower's plan for an invasion, and the resulting fiasco at the Bay of Pigs was a humiliation for the US. He also at least acquiesced in botched assassination attempts against Castro. Yet what we have come to know about Castro proves how right Kennedy was to see danger there. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 arose not through supposed US imperialism, but because Castro genuinely believed the Communist bloc should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States. The blundering Khrushchev believed that in siting missiles in Cuba he was striking a blow for Communist solidarity. He hadn't reckoned that Castro, foolishly taking at face value the boasts of Soviet nuclear superiority, was unfazed by the prospect of American invasion:

That would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever through an act of clear and legitimate defence, however harsh and terrible the solution would be, for there is no other. [cable to Khrushchev, 26 October 1962, quoted in John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know, 1997]

That appears to have been the moment when Khrushchev realised how close he was to precipitating catastrophe, and how urgent it was that he start extricating himself. Fortunately American leadership – so far from being 'terrorist', as Chomsky claims – was farsighted and intelligent, and thereby allowed him a way to do so. Unfortunately for the people of Cuba, that entailed an abandonment of the aim of removing Castro from power.

This type of thing is typical of Chomsky's work. To those who are unfamiliar with history, Chomsky's political writings might seem a rational and informed case. Yet when you strip away the invective you're left with little but heroic assumption, tendentious assertion, egregious omission and even outright fabrication. Unfortunately, historical literacy is an increasingly scarce condition, and Chomsky has managed to build a large constituency on the strength of it among those of college age. The Berkeley economist Brad DeLong has written about this curious phenomenon in his blog:

The Chomsky defenders - and there seem to be a surprisingly large number of them - seem to form a kind of cult. Arguing with them seems to be a lot like trying to teach Plato's Republic to a pig: it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.

What I object to is that Chomsky is an intellectual totalitarian. What I object to is that Chomsky tears up all the trail markers that might lead to conclusions different from his, and makes it next to impossible for people unversed in the issues to even understand what the live and much-debated points of contention are. What I object to is that Chomsky writes not to teach, but to brainwash: to create badly-informed believers in his point of view who won't know enough about the history or the background to think the issues through for themselves.

I believe I've read all of Chomsky’s political books, and I concur with DeLong's remarks. It's unfortunate – most of all for the believers – that those books have received little sustained criticism by competent authorities, largely because the competent authorities have better things to do with their time. I know of only one long informed critique of Chomsky in a weighty or academic journal, and that was more than 20 years ago (by Stephen Morris in Harvard International Review – not online to my knowledge). As a result of being observed mainly or only by the true believers, Chomsky has managed also to put in circulation a carefully-sanitised account of some of the issues DeLong raises (especially on the affair of the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson).

I plan at some point to post on this site a long review of Chomsky's entire political output, but I'm finding it's quite an undertaking given the scale of the task of disinterring the historical errors and sly omissions. As an illustration of the problem in dealing with Chomsky, my favourite – if that's the appropriate word – citation comes from a collection of 'interviews' (more accurately, gentle lobs) entitled Class Warfare:

My impression is that the Nagasaki bomb was basically an experiment.... Somebody ought to check this out, I'm not certain.

So there we have it. Chomsky asserts that the United States dropped the bomb because of a Mengele-like determination to conduct an experiment in human life and death on a mass scale. He has no evidence for this grotesque calumny and doesn't attempt to adduce any. Well might he add hurriedly that he's 'not certain'. But a historian or serious political analyst – indeed anyone of the slightest pretension to objectivity, fairness and critical inquiry – doesn't act that way.

Perhaps the message is finally getting through, however. The interview on Cuba to which I have linked is prefaced by the observation that the interview covers a range of subjects in addition to that nominally covered. And it was done:

always with the rigorous political analysis that we are used to from Professor Chomsky.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Comments

[Jackie D]

My attitude to Chomsky used to be similar to my attitude to many sports teams or bands: that is to say, that he wasn't nearly as stupid and annoying as his disciples.

I was wrong.

[Richmond Holdren]

Excellent post, Oliver.

However, you might have informed your readers that this sort of thing is really nothing new. Chomsky gave a similarly vile speech at an anti-war rally in Hanoi on April 13, 1970 (it was later broadcast over Radio Hanoi). The entire speech is transcribed and cited at the following URL:

http://no-treason.com/Starr/3.html

In it he praised a book by the North Vietnamese Communist leader Le Duan and said that:

"The people of Vietnam will win, they must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny".

Presumably, this is demonstrated by the humanitarian disaster that occurred after the fall of Saigon, with executions, Stalinist re-education camps, hundreds of thousands of refugees and a tyranny which still continues today with the persecution of dissidents like Pham Hong Son.

Then there was his similar approach towards the regimes of the Khmer Rouge and Sandinistas. These apologetics voiced over Castro's propaganda station are quite damning, but certainly no more so than his record otherwise.

[Tim Newman]

As he is a linguist, I'm not sure why Chomsky uses the word "practically" in the following sentence:

"Kennedy invaded Cuba and then launched Operation Mongoose leading right to the missile crisis which practically destroyed the world."

What he means is that the missile crisis came close to destroying the world. But from a practical point of view, and with regards to destroying the world, the missile crisis never happended. The world was no more destroyed after the crisis as it was before.

I know you don't allow even mild profanities in your comments section, but you have no idea how difficult it is for me to refrain from using them when talking about Chomsky.

[Dan Goss]

Assume for a moment that you've been persuaded, to the seat of your well-intentioned soul, that ubiquitous government coercion is the only legitimate means of securing human dignity and social justice.

In that case any state (no matter how repressive or corrupt this or that egalitarian experiment may be) which shares your socialist premise is vastly preferable to any nonsocialist alternative.

Particularly stubborn alternatives, like the United States, therefore demand unrelenting opposition in every arena.

Even when such a fundamentally regressive, nonsocialist state manages to do something apparently "right", its motives must be discredited--for the greater good.

Just as the apparent "wrongs" of failed socialist states must be zealously defended in the name of that same greater good.

------------------------------------------------------

The above is the only motivation I've found to explain the rabidly anti-individualist and reflexively anti-American assumptions of so many otherwise intelligent people--like Chomsky.

It's the only motivation I've found, for instance, to explain why the behavior of the US during the Cold War is routinely condemned by socialists without any reference whatsoever to the behavior of the Soviet Union.

Those opposed to socialism, I'm not thrilled to admit, have often demonstrated a similar tolerance for repressive regimes judged preferable to some socialist alternative.

Chomsky's passionate commitment to a global socialist future has made him willfully blind to any fact or argument he suspects might impede its realization.

I now view such blindness as a warning.

As a stark reminder that no matter how passionate I may be about my own "philosophically liberal" perspective, I cannot afford to close my mind to plausible alternatives, even (shiver) gleefully socialist alternatives.

For willful blindness inevitably leads to intellectual stagnation. To shame.

And, finally, to the sad specter of Noam Chomsky.

[Jimmy Doyle]

Oliver,

May I point out to your readers the availability of your reviews of many of Chomsky's political works on Amazon.com?

[George Peery]

"...the competent authorities have better things to do with their time."

Exactly. I'm surprised Oliver would devote his attention to this insufferable jerk.

[ross]

"I'm surprised Oliver would devote his attention to this insufferable jerk"
Well somebody should, Chomsky may be repulsive but he is astonishingly influential, according to one survey which was quoted by NRO's Jay Nordlinger a few months ago, Chomsky is the 7th most cited intellectual of all time.
I would also suggest that David Horowitz's article "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky" is worth reading if you want to read more about Chomsky. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1020

[Michael]

You probably know this, but New Criterion has a piece, "The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky," at http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

[Steve de Wijze]

Oliver,

Thank you for your excellent post on Chomsky. I very much look forward to your long review of Chomsky's entire political output. It is desperately needed. Many of the students I teach at the University of Manchester think of Chomsky as the definitive voice on a range of political topics. As you point out, his work is poisonous propoganda, shoddy reasoning, and downright mendacious rubbish, to say the least. Norm Geras first introduced me to your blog which I think is compulsory reading for all.

Best wishes,

Steve de Wijze

[james]

Oliver,

I agree with much of what is said here about Chomsky. And you'd think he of all people should identify with Cuban dissidents. Or maybe it's an uncomfortable thought for him to contrast their treatment with the free speech he enjoys.

However I would like to think that those who make these criticisms are not simply reactionary pro-Americans - in the same sense that Chomsky could be described as a reactionary anti-American.

So don't you undermine your critique when you defend the Bay of Pigs invasion? To say "look how Castro turned out" is pretty weak.

[linden]

The Bay of Pigs invasion is only indefensible because it failed. They should have sent a much more overwhelming force to rid Cuba of Castro.

[Charles Stewart]

Oliver: I look forward very much to reading your overview of Chomsky's political works (have you really read all of it? Not just the books?). Chomsky's reputation as an intellectual totalitarian is deserved as much in his work on linguistics as it is in politics, and an understanding of how he came to be the figure he is in linguistics maybe is valuable in understanding his political work. I recommend Randy Harris' really excellent book "The Linguistics Wars", reviewed at the linguist list:
http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-644.html

[Charles Stewart]

Postscript to my messaage above: more on the link between Chomsky's work in linguistics and in politics. Robert Barsky has written a star-struck biography of Noam Chomsky that has attracted generally negative reviews by the knowledgable. Two in particular are worth reading:
Randy Harris (again), a PDF document:
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~raha/reviews/Harris-Barsky.pdf
and John Goldsmith:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/goldsmith/barsky.htm

[james]

I can't claim to be an expert on the matter, but isn't the truth about the Bay of Pigs invasion that it was no more and no less than an attempt to prevent a leftist government replacing Batista's pliant dictatorship a la Chile 1973? Castro seems to have been popular at this stage (indeed I don't know if he isn't still, despite his oppression and, indeed, brutality) or at any rate more popular than Batista.

I repeat, if Chomsky's critics (among whom I count myself) want to be taken seriously, they ought to take America's actual crimes seriously.

[spacetoast]

Charles-

Does that book deal very much with the theoretical substance of the dispute or is it mostly just about the personalities involved and that kind of thing? I ask because I've just recently discovered Lakoff and I'm very interested in learning more about the trajectory of his ideas (and the dispute with Chomsky in that connection), but I don't want to read a glorified gossip novel.

?

[Charles Stewart]

spacetoast: Both, but the book has been criticised for not covering the Bloomfeldians deeply enough (that is, the people Chomsky and his disciples displaced in mainstream Anglo-Saxon linguistics), and for not treating the ongoing impact on modern research threads in depth. I don't think these are serious defects, since he does tackle both.

[Cody]

"I know of only one long informed critique of Chomsky in a weighty or academic journal, and that was more than 20 years ago (by Stephen Morris in Harvard International Review – not online to my knowledge)."

God bless google:

http://www.abbc.com/totus/CGCF/file10Morris.html

[Daniel]

"My impression is that the Nagasaki bomb was basically an experiment.... Somebody ought to check this out, I'm not certain."

if this is only rhetoric, and has no historical basis, then can you explain to me why hiroshima and nagasaki were some of the (if not the only) major japanese cities to escape bombing?

The answer is simple, the United States government wanted to see what effect their new bomb would have on humans, houses, schools, factories, etc, etc, etc. Shortly after the bombs were dropped, other planes flew over to take photos of the devistated cities.

Why did this simple fact escape your article? could it be that everybody who wishes to prove a point makes "heroic assumptions, tendentious assertions, egregious omissions and even outright fabrications?"

Apparantly, you're not so different from how you believe Chomsky to be: quick to judge and slow to really examine the facts.

oh, and just to inform you, because I'm sure you haven't figured it out yet, Fox news is not fair and balanced, and bill o'reily spins everything.