Furthermore, the American Revolution was the only Revolution where the established churches were on the side of the Revolution.

I am a secularist and agnostic, however the role of religion in the Revolution cannot be denied.

Those separate statements are fine and even desirable, however it is how he links them together that I have issues with. That and the details. The devil lives in them.

Take pacificism. Great idea, and I firmly believe in non-agression as a general rule. However, pacificism only works if both sides believe in it. If they don't then pacificism, far from being a virtue, is a horrible horrible evil.

It is the age old problem of idealism. Good to be idealistic, and good to work for it, however one should not discount realism in the process.

I agree , if somebody is going to attack me or mine they best come armed for bear to do it. Because I will defend myself and mine. The mine being more important as my own life is mine to give or lay down as I please. I would not make that decision for people I care about.


But the just war doctrine established by the churches suits me fine as a basis for war.

If Chomsky is a complete pacifist I have never caught that in his books or the lectures I have heard.

In truth no man or woman can truly say they are a pacifist. They might be surprised what they would do when faced by a man trying to kill them. That pacifism might run right out the door and self preservation kick in. Or at least the preservation of others become a concern as it should.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

I used the pacifism argument because I think it demostrates what I dislike about Chomsky - the lack of context and proportion. Chomsky is one of those people who all too clearly sees the faults of his own country (and trust me there are more than enough faults), but fails to see the faults in others.

Did the US do horrible things in the cold war, yes, but the russians did more things worse, and the world is better off that the US won and russia lost. Chomsky thinks differently. Now does this justify what the US did? Partially, but not fully. Could the US have been better? Yes. These are legitimate points, but at the same time proportion has to be considered. The world is not about right or wrong, it is about better and worse. The US for all its sins was better than Russia. Our support in South Korea involved supporting military dictators who butchered dissidents, but it enabled South Korea to become what it is today, whereas the support of Russia for the North has led it to being what it is today. Which county is better off? Chomsky, because of his misguided idealism would argue the North.

That is my issue with him. Blind idealism leads to horrible results.

Chromsky is a communist and should be discounted on that basis alone

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Strange but I have heard Chomsky decry the current russian attempt to indoctrinate their youth that the US is the great satan . In particular he condemned those russian summer camps they hold for all youths where Bush is depicted dressed as a whore and the US as the worst country on earth.

I have also heard him speak out against the abuses of third world governments against their own people many times.

I do not perceive Chomsky as speaking out against only the US at all. I perceive he speaks out against the ill treatment of citizens no matter which government is doing the wrong.

Perhaps you should read his books again Soho. Pick one that doesn't just deal with the US. He will tell you the abuse of governments against their citizens is rampant the world over.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

Nothing wrong with the idea of communism Nathan.

What is wrong is that it has never been implemented correctly.

I doubt men are capable of ever implementing a program where all men are actually treated equally so communism is a lost cause.


But again Nathan your showing your under education Norm Chomsky is no communist. Chomsky is of jewish ancestry. .

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

Actually have back in the 80's, but eventually I will need a refresher.

The issue isn't that Chomsky doesn't speak out against these things, rather the proportion of blame he assigns. Also Russia now is not the Soviet Union, so it is okay to attack it.

As for the 3rd world countries, an interesting illustration to show my issue with Chomsky. What is Chomsky's solution for addressing the needs of the 3rd world?

There is ABSOLUTELY something wrong with Communism. Again, idealistically perhaps not, but when translated into reality it will ALWAYS end up with totalitarianism. It HAS to by design. Who decides what "treating equally is", who will enforce it? This requires a repressive government to achieve. It requires regulation of nearly every facet of human life. In order to achieve this you need a totalitarian government, and you know what happens when that occurs.

As for Chomsky being jewish therefore not a communist. WHAT? Many leading communists were of jewish ancestry, including Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky.

You are showing you can't read. Answer the questions I posted in red.

I only posted the last line because I needed something to make the post go thru, now go back like a good little comrade and read my questions in red.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy