========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: ukeith@telerama.lm.com (Keith)
Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:16:54 -0400

As I found nothing new in your accompanying post that I or others have not
already responded to, I will not respond to it. I do not want to
get into a back and forth "yes, he did!" "no, he didn't" exchange.

However, this posting does contain some new and interesting comments.

Hugo S. Cunningham (hcunn@tiac.net) wrote:
> ukeith@telerama.lm.com (Keith) wrote:

> >Hugo S. Cunningham (hcunn@tiac.net) wrote:
> >> ukeith@telerama.lm.com (Keith) wrote:

> >> [deleted]

> >> >Hugo S. Cunningham (hcunn@tiac.net) wrote:

> >> [deleted]

> >> >> Not really true.  Chomsky consistently favors the enemies of the West,
> >> >> most likely because his version of Anarcho-Leftism is far closer to
> >> >> Communism than to America's mixed economy.

> >> >Would you like to provide some citations from Chomsky's writings that
> >> >support this conclusion? Readers should note that Hugo has not quoted
> >> >a single sentence of Chomsky to prove any of his assertions.

> My posting above talks about the "economy" rather than press laws and
> civil liberties.  I was assuming that Chomsky, like everyone else on
> the radical left, is anti-capitalist.  Am I wrong?

You are not wrong that Chomsky is anti-capitalist, however, that does
not mean he would side with Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, as other posters
have pointed out.

However, you have repeatedly ducked my challenge to show that Chomsky
"favors the enemies of the West," by citing Chomsky's own writings.
But then, your gem of a confession below makes me understand why:
you've not read very much of the author you so confidently condemn.

> >> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
> >> chances are it is a duck.  Compile a long-term list of the regimes and
> >> movements Chomsky defends and the ones he attacks, and a rather
> >> obvious pattern emerges.
> >>     Historical note:  In Russia's civil war (1917-21),
> >> Anarcho-Leftists (eg Kronstadt sailors, Makhno) supported the
> >> Communists against both parliamentarians and "White" generals.  After
> >> the Communist victory, the Anarcho-Left started to oppose them, but
> >> were easily put down.

> >>     As a  world-renowned linguist, Prof. Chomsky is a master of
> >> ambiguity and deniability.  For that reason, the Khmer Rouge record is
> >> especially worth treasuring.

> >Talk of ducks does not answer my question. I asked if you could support
> >your assertion by citations to Chomsky's writings. You did not provide
> >a single citation, you only repeated your assertion.

> [later stuff deleted.  Much of it appears in my companion 419-line
> posting]

> I confess that I do not follow Chomsky regularly, except as he
> occasionally pops up "in my face" with a well-publicized defense of
> some new egregious tyrant, eg Saddam Hussein (1990).  (History will
> condemn George Bush for failing to support the rising of the Shi'a and
> Kurds against Saddam ["There is no substitute for victory!"], but that
> is for some other newsgroup.)

This is a lie: Chomsky has never defended Saddam Hussein. Being opposed
to US policy toward Iraq is not the same thing as defending Saddam
Hussein. Hugo, you seem to misunderstand this very basic concept:
disagreeing with US policy toward a particular nation does not
translate into defense of the rulers of that nation. There really
can be more than two "sides."

> [Incidentally, admirers of Prof. Chomsky might avoid cross-posting
> here in alt.politics.libertarian, to avoid tangles with disreputable
> motor-cycle gangs.  But perhaps someone else was responsible for the
> cross-post.]

[alt.politics.libertarian removed from follow-up]

[Story of "Deterring Democracy" deleted.]

> --Hugo S. Cunningham

Keith



========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 03:58:06 GMT

ukeith@telerama.lm.com (Keith) wrote:

[deleted]

>Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

>> I confess that I do not follow Chomsky regularly, except as he
>> occasionally pops up "in my face" with a well-publicized defense of
>> some new egregious tyrant, eg Saddam Hussein (1990).  (History will
>> condemn George Bush for failing to support the rising of the Shi'a and
>> Kurds against Saddam ["There is no substitute for victory!"], but that
>> is for some other newsgroup.)

>This is a lie: Chomsky has never defended Saddam Hussein. Being opposed
>to US policy toward Iraq is not the same thing as defending Saddam
>Hussein. Hugo, you seem to misunderstand this very basic concept:
>disagreeing with US policy toward a particular nation does not
>translate into defense of the rulers of that nation. There really
>can be more than two "sides."

In questions of war and peace, that is not necessarily so.  Times come
when one has to make a yes-or-no decision, whether or not to oppose a
threat effectively.  The earnest Western pacifists who appeased Hitler
in the 1930s may not have considered him suitable for their salons,
but they ended up doing his work anyways.
  
>> [Incidentally, admirers of Prof. Chomsky might avoid cross-posting
>> here in alt.politics.libertarian, to avoid tangles with disreputable
>> motor-cycle gangs.  But perhaps someone else was responsible for the
>> cross-post.]

>[alt.politics.libertarian removed from follow-up]

Were you really taken in by that bluster?  Some other anarcho-leftists
often make appearances here.  (Actually, I see that
alt.politics.libertarian is still on the address header, but never
mind...)

--Hugo S. Cunningham



========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (FAIR (by Hugo S. Cunningham))
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:00:30 GMT

hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham) posts this E-Mail message I
received from FAIR.  I don't believe they would object, as a public
organization.  I have, however, taken the precaution of deleting the
author's signature.


Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting 
To: hcunn@tiac.net
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record  [was
Re: Choms

It's funny that none of the _very few_ Chomsky quotes you record make
your 
point.  What is really interesting is that you think that these few 
quotes, taken from numerous Chomsky writings you _cite_, make your
best case 
for Chomsky's bad faith.  In summary, you can't muster a single 
Chomsky quote supporting the Khmer Rouge, nor defending any of it's 
atrocities, in fact you quote Chomsky actually claiming that the 
KR committed mass murder (Nation, 1977). You have provided many cites,

but only a couple of snipped quotes. The fact that you choose to write

your own description of Chomsky's writings, rather than demonstrate
your argument with his quotes raises a red flag of suspicion for
readers.

As someone who is familiar the Chomsky writings you cite, I know that 
your descrition of his argument is, to put it lightly, a series of 
distortions. 

If you were to say that Chomsky urged caution in the 
reporting of politically convenient atrocities (convenient for US 
policy makers), and that Chomsky was not fully aware of the magnitude
of 
Pol Pot's rampage -- at a time of conflicting and murky information --

you would have a point. However, that is not your point, and the point

you attempt to make is not supported by Chomsky's on-the-record
comments.

It is testimony to the power of Chomsky's criticism and commentary
that 
a virtual anti-Chomsky cottage industry has emerged which continually 
recycles the same canards and unsupported accusations against him.

Sincerely,

[author's name deleted, pending his authorization]
 



========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:38:52 GMT

hcunn@tiac.net (FAIR (by Hugo S. Cunningham)) wrote:

>hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham) posts this E-Mail message I
>received from FAIR.  I don't believe they would object, as a public
>organization.  I have, however, taken the precaution of deleting the
>author's signature.


>Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting 
>To: hcunn@tiac.net
>Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record  [was
>Re: Choms

>It's funny that none of the _very few_ Chomsky quotes you record make
>your 
>point.  What is really interesting is that you think that these few 
>quotes, taken from numerous

I only cited two articles, which are much easier for skeptics to check
out for themselves.

>Chomsky writings you _cite_, make your
>best case 
>for Chomsky's bad faith.

I admit that the phrase "bad faith" was needlessly provocative.
Better would have been "ideological blinders."

>In summary, you can't muster a single 
>Chomsky quote supporting the Khmer Rouge, nor defending any of it's 
>atrocities, in fact you quote Chomsky actually claiming that the 
>KR committed mass murder (Nation, 1977).

I checked the quotes I used, and do not see the phrase "mass murder"
therein.  If you mean my cite of "executions...at most in the
thousands," that might be "mass murder" in the West, but is a
drastically downsized version of what was understood by the general
public as "mass murder" in Cambodia. 

>You have provided many cites,

I only cited two Chomsky articles.  (Or are you counting the NYT dates
in my chronology?  Surely those are simply public record, not
"cites"?)

>but only a couple of snipped quotes. The fact that you choose to write

>your own description of Chomsky's writings, rather than demonstrate
>your argument with his quotes raises a red flag of suspicion for
>readers.

>As someone who is familiar the Chomsky writings you cite, I know that 
>your descrition of his argument is, to put it lightly, a series of 
>distortions. 

An average reader of Chomsky's 1977 "Nation" article would walk away
with two main impressions:  (1)  The Western press drastically
exaggerated Khmer Rouge barbarity, and (2)  the Western press
drastically under-reported US responsibility for Cambodia's problems.
     To the extent I implied #1 (defense of the Khmer Rouge) was the
only point in Chomsky's article, it was arguably a "distortion";
nevertheless, points #1 and #2 (attacking the US record) are
independent.  Chomsky could have made point #2 without defending the
Khmer Rouge (point #1), but his natural combativeness got the better
of him.  Indeed, he remained reluctant to condemn the Khmer Rouge even
a year later, (see my "Dissent" quote).

>If you were to say that Chomsky urged caution in the 
>reporting of politically convenient atrocities (convenient for US 
>policy makers), and that Chomsky was not fully aware of the magnitude
>of 
>Pol Pot's rampage-- at a time of conflicting and murky information --

Somehow, just about everyone else in the world had become aware of it
by that time.
One also has to wonder why the information might have seemed
"conflicting and murky."  Khmer Rouge Cambodia was sealed off from the
outside world, like Auschwitz, or Stalin's Ukraine during
Collectivization (1929-33).  The Khmer Rouge had set the tone early,
by sequestering and quietly executing five Western journalists.  Our
experience with Hitler and Stalin should have alerted even Prof
Chomsky that when a totalitarian state seals itself off, it generally
has something important to hide.

>you would have a point. However, that is not your point, and the point

>you attempt to make is not supported by Chomsky's on-the-record
>comments.

>It is testimony to the power of Chomsky's criticism and commentary
>that 
>a virtual anti-Chomsky cottage industry has emerged which continually 
>recycles the same canards and unsupported accusations against him.

He is certainly prolific.

>Sincerely,

>[author's name deleted, pending his authorization]
> 
--Hugo S. Cunningham