Noam Chomsky has given his take on the whole South Ossetia-Russia-Georgia-US imbroglio. I haven’t read Chomsky in years. He rarely says anything he hadn’t already said 20 years ago; and his penchant toward focusing on American hypocrisy is simply stating the obvious. He has a tendency to overdetermine American power thereby creating a monolithic, well oiled imperial machine controlled and manipulated by a cabal of American capitalists. Unfortunately things aren’t that simple and after a few reads, that line gets old. Fast.
Nevertheless, many listen to Chomsky and sometimes, yes, sometimes he has some interesting observations. Since Russia has moved back onto his analytical radar, I provide a few excerpts from his “Towards a Second Cold War?” to get readers’ thoughts.
After opening with the usual diatribe against American hypocrisy and cynicism, Chomsky writes,
The Russian propaganda system made the mistake of presenting evidence, which was easily refuted. Its Western counterparts, more wisely, keep to authoritative pronouncements, like Levy’s denunciation of the major Western media for ignoring what is “blindingly obvious to all scrupulous, good-faith observers” for whom loyalty to the state suffices to establish The Truth – which, perhaps, is even true, serious analysts might conclude.
The Russians are losing the “propaganda war,” BBC reported, as Washington and its allies have succeeded in “presenting the Russian actions as aggression and playing down the Georgian attack into South Ossetia on August 7, which triggered the Russian operation,” though “the evidence from South Ossetia about that attack indicates that it was extensive and damaging.” Russia has “not yet learned how to play the media game,” the BBC observes. That is natural. Propaganda has typically become more sophisticated as countries become more free and the state loses the ability to control the population by force. (Emphasis mine)
I think his last statement is key here. My previous posting of how CNN edited Putin’s interview was to imply exactlty this. American media is far more sophisticated in crafting a message while Russia’s, as show by Vesti‘s crude parlor tricks, remains hopelessly amateur. I happen to think CNN‘s editing of Putin’s interview is worse on an ideological level because it falls within acceptable parameters. Crass manipulation of the message is mystified by the logic of harmless, and more important, practical editing. To my knowledge the full interview with Putin, as relayed by the transcript, was never aired on CNN in the States. Even if it was, the main clips of Putin accusing the US of orchestrating the war were repeated endlessly on pretty much every American news outlet, making the content of whole interview superfluous. Plus, as Yasha Levine notes in his article, CNN viewers on both sides of the pond got different versions. Levine writes,
Despite the “unprecedented access” hook, for its U.S. feed, CNN reduced the 30-minute interview into a series of sound bites that seized and ridiculed Putin’s crackpot theory that the Republican party started the war to boost McCain’s ratings. CNN’s international audience, enjoying the news from hotel rooms all round the world, got to see a little more of the footage. But most of it had to do with Russia’s ridiculous “non-political” decision to ban some American poultry importers from doing business with Russia because of their poor quality control standards. CNN’s intentions were clear: Putin must come off looking like a fool. And it seemed Putin gave them the perfect material.
But back to Noam. One of the things I appreciate about his article is that he puts the Clinton Doctrine (“Washington has the right to use military force to defend vital interests such as “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources”) at center stage rather than its heir, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike. But as Chomsky notes, even the Clinton Doctrine was hardly new.
Clinton was breaking no new ground, of course. His doctrine derives from standard principles formulated by high-level planners during World War II, which offered the prospect of global dominance. In the postwar world, they determined, the US should aim “to hold unquestioned power” while ensuring the “limitation of any exercise of sovereignty” by states that might interfere with its global designs. To secure these ends, “the foremost requirement [is] the rapid fulfillment of a program of complete rearmament,” a core element of “an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States.” The plans laid during the war were implemented in various ways in the years that followed.
When you throw in America’s self-imposed, messianic mission to spread “freedom” (according to its own definition, by the way) that is quite a mix imperial power politics and ideological fervor. The fact that not just Sara Palin but Barak Obama, John McCain and almost every other politician weds America’s national interests with freedom (at home and abroad) speaks volumes to how it well it resonates with the American public. The imperial rhetoric of both parties was on open display at their conventions. The only difference I heard between them was tone.
Finally, even Chomsky, the old lefty Cold Warrior that he is, doubts a new Cold War is in the making. He writes,
Nonetheless, a new cold war seems unlikely. To evaluate the prospect, we should begin with clarity about the old cold war. Fevered rhetoric aside, in practice the cold war was a tacit compact in which each of the contestants was largely free to resort to violence and subversion to control its own domains: for Russia, its Eastern neighbors; for the global superpower, most of the world. Human society need not endure – and might not survive – a resurrection of anything like that.
I think the abscence of current agreement between theives is important to remember. It sure makes me think those analysts who are conjuring 19th century metaphors to describe the current world order might be on to something. Perhaps it time to review, revive and revise Lenin’s and Rosa Luxembourg’s thoeries of imperialist rivalry as inherent to globalist capitalism.
{{applause}}
{{applause}}
I just saw the film, The Corporation, for the first time last night. Actually, I only saw about half of it before reaching a threshold of tolerance… I’ll watch the other half tonight. But I recommend it. The basic theme is the legal treatment of corporations as human individuals (the actual legal anthropomorphism of an economic contract), and following that logic, illustrating how they are textbook psychopaths. Good stuff…
WTF! looks like McCain is stealing my words!!!
”PS. I wonder if Ger has sense of humor? In Russian sense of it?”
No. Especially after an evening of putting manure into the garden, followed by a tv documentary on Cromwell. Entirely disagreeable stuff I can tell you.
”The tendency to anthropomorphize the economy and market always strikes me as quite perverted.”
I hope you’re right Sean, but sadly i doubt it. Since last summer when the markets started going downwards funnily enough people started losing their jobs and stuff got more expensive. A coincidence? I think not.
”As for the events of 1994, before any Russian forces moved into Chechnya about 10,000 ethnic Russians were massacred by Chechens, children raped (I don’t mention women), property taken, non-Chechens had to flee…”
President Medvedev, you are not only totally confused, but totally wrong. These things happened AFTER the Russian army moved in 1994, and were carried out by RUSSIAN troops.
In fact the statement is such a lie I’m wondering are you taking the piss.
———————————————-
Irishman,
I wish you new what you are saying … it’s really sinful, but I cannot even be angry with you since you’ve been brainwashed by this one-sided propaganda for years. If you ever decide to see to what extend you were wrong refer to this website (if you read Russian):
http://genocide-chechnya.front.ru/numbers/num_1/num_1_2.htm
The article is entitled: “Russians! Don’t leave – we need slaves!” This is a common graffiti that could be seen all over Chechnya in 1991-94 before the Russian Army “invaded”. The article contains facts of the genocide against Russians. It’s more horrible than Ruwanda: Rape of teenagers, forcing dogs to have sex with Russian women, killed children, looting, robberies, etc, etc, etc …
Of course, it’s “the Russian propaganda”, or is it?
”The article contains facts of the genocide against Russians. It’s more horrible than Ruwanda: Rape of teenagers, forcing dogs to have sex with Russian women, killed children, looting, robberies, etc, etc, etc …”
I refer you to this, posted earlier by Tim Newman:
”I know two people very well who lived in Grozny at the time, one was my old Russian teacher (an ethnic Russian) and the other is a friend of mine here on Sakhalin (also an ethnic Russian). Both of them told me the same thing: that things were tolerable until the Russian army arrived, at which point they were told to get out as things were going to get nasty, and anyone left behind would deserve whatever is coming.”
I do know that Russians were mistreated, and bady so, between 1991-1994, but I am highly doubtful about the animal rapes and also wonder at the scale of it, if it did indeed happen at all. The books I have read on the war were written by westerners in the mid-nineties. They made no mention of such rapes, though they did speak of robberies and murders, but not anywhere near the scale of what would happen later when the Russians arrived. I should also note that what I have read did not spare the Chechens either – indeed, Chechen brutality was one of many themes – but I have never heard of any large-scale deliberate campaign targeting Russians pre 1994. Apart from anything else thousands and thousands of Russians did not leave Chechnya until after the Russian bombardment – which makes me wonder how wide scale your ”Rwanda genocide” was really.
I am in no way defending Chechens either – I am fully aware of how brutal they are. But the Russians were worse, much worse, and they were supposed to be the government ‘restoring constitutional order’. My arse.
Come on! More horrible than Rwanda? Don’t be obscene!
Listen, I’m sure some Chechens raped and killed Russians. Chechnya was a lawless place during the days of Dudayev. But before the war there was no organized anti-Russian genocidal campaign. I also talked to Russians who lived there. They acknowledged that during Dudayev Chechnya was becoming a more dangerous and thuggish place than ever before, and that’s why they left. But it was a family decision, not a decision imposed by the Chechens, and they never said anything about genocidal rapes and killings of Russians. They actually liked the Chechens and said that a Chechen friend will prove much more loyal than anyone else.
”refer to this website (if you read Russian):
http://genocide-chechnya.front.ru/numbers/num_1/num_1_2.htm”
I’m going to read it. It’ll take me a while and I’ll need a dictionary, but I will respond to it.
Murders of non-Chechens (not Russians, dammit) by Chechens, yes.
Killings organized by Dudaev and animal rapes, I doubt it.
I’d just like to add that I’m not trying to insult ordinary Russians – my rants are firmly aimed at the Russian government, and apologies for going over the top at times. Russia is cool, the language is cool, the government are not:-(
And I’m not having a go at Chris Doss either, even if he is a self professed court-appointed Russia Friendly;-)
”Killings organized by Dudaev and animal rapes, I doubt it.”
I thought the Chechens were extremely averse to rape, but I do know they did rape occasionally -it cant be said that they didn. I never ever heard of animal rape there though.
“But the Russians were worse, much worse,”
I think that has mainly to do with technological level and the different nature of the terrain (metaphorically speaking).
“I’d just like to add that I’m not trying to insult ordinary Russians – my rants are firmly aimed at the Russian government, and apologies for going over the top at times. Russia is cool, the language is cool, the government are not:-(”
But the thing is, some (not all) of the things you accuse the government of are not actually in the government’s control. A great deal of the carnage of CWI and to a lesser extent CWII was because they didn’t know what they were doing, not out of malevolence. It was not the kind of conflict Russia had any experience with. Their military doctrine was designed for fighting NATO, not counterinsurgents.
”But the thing is, some (not all) of the things you accuse the government of are not actually in the government’s control.”
Isnt it a Russian saying – ‘what is to be done and who is to blame’? – or maybe its Irish?
Does anyone ever wonder why most economic reporting is virtually devoid of people? Or I should say people who aren’t bank managers, CEOs, major shareholders, etc
Eh? I read loads of economic commentary by people who are not bank managers, CEOs, and major shareholders.
But I’m not surprised you haven’t found them.
Oh, I see what you mean. I think. You mean why don’t people who write about economics also write about people affected by them?
They do. There are dozens and dozens of people writing about the effects of wrong-headed economic policies on individuals.
For example, this is a cental theme of Naomi Klein’s work. The problem with Klein is that she is clueless about economics.
I thought the Chechens were extremely averse to rape, but I do know they did rape occasionally -it cant be said that they didn. I never ever heard of animal rape there though.
We have this in Wales, only it’s normally consensual.
10-1 odds that Tim has never actually read Klein.
Doug Henwood is a big exception to the “economists don’t mention people” trope. But then he is not part of the mainstream, well, only on the banks of it.
”I thought the Chechens were extremely averse to rape, but I do know they did rape occasionally -it cant be said that they didn. I never ever heard of animal rape there though.
We have this in Wales, only it’s normally consensual”
Have any of you read Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin novels? There’s a funny scene in ‘HMS Suprise’ when one of the shiphands has to be hanged for soddomy of a goat. It was a Royal Navy rule that the animals on the men-of-war couldnt be molested by sailors, punishable by hanging. Capt. Aubrey is furious that one of his lads has been caught and has to be executed publicly in front of all the other other ships and crew parked in dock!
“There’s a funny scene in ‘HMS Suprise’ when one of the shiphands has to be hanged for soddomy of a goat. It was a Royal Navy rule that the animals on the men-of-war couldnt be molested by sailors, punishable by hanging.”
Ever read Terror by Dan Simmons? He says the same thing.
”Ever read Terror by Dan Simmons? He says the same thing.”
It happened quite commonly back then seemingly!
Well, wouldn’t it? You have 100+ men at sea for years. Of course they’ll be going after everything in sight.
The death penalty for sex between men upon an Imperial Navy vessel is actually a plot point of Simmons’ (very good) book.
10-1 odds that Tim has never actually read Klein.
Don’t ever become a bookie.
She had a regular column in The Guardian (might still do) during the 3-4 years when I would read it daily. She provided much of the material for my old blog back in 2003.
Columns in the Guardian don’t count.
Yeah, she still does.
I wonder if she still believes in the fixed wealth fallacy, which carries some weight in this parish? Which is the economic equivalent of somebody who writes on geography thinking the world is flat.
Columns in the Guardian don’t count.
Of course not. That would involve you having to admit that perhaps I have read Klein’s work after all, so you’ll reduce the definition down to one which makes you look less foolish.
”Well, wouldn’t it? You have 100+ men at sea for years. Of course they’ll be going after everything in sight.”
Try 850 men, the crew of HMS Victory. A beast of a ship. I’ve always wanted to go and see her in Pompey, never did though:-(
I dont know what the scentence for man-man sex, but going at the animals was hanging.
Try 850 men, the crew of HMS Victory.
Try 296 men, the combined complement of the Safe Astoria and the Lunskoye-A.
That would have to be one sexy goat, or I would have to have a deep and meaningful emotional attachment to it, to risk death.
Noah’s Ark most have been a zoophile’s heaven.
“That would involve you having to admit that perhaps I have read Klein’s work after all, so you’ll reduce the definition down to one which makes you look less foolish.”
No, I am not concerned about how I appear, foolish, wise like Solomon, or otherwise, to the few readers of a blog, or the even smaller subset of them who compose your ideological cohort. Newspaper columns do not count as “work.” Kagarlitsky’s work is not his Moscow Times or NG articles, they are Restavratsiya v Rossii and Obuchenie. Marx’s work is Capital, not his articles on the Civil War.
”Try 296 men, the combined complement of the Safe Astoria and the Lunskoye-A.”
It doesnt bear thinking about. Gay love on an oil-rig in the Sea of Okhotsk. A kind of Russian Brokeback Mountain, with sea instead of mountains, and or rather mountains of red-tape instead of real mountains. Brrr!
Am I imagining things, or has there been not one comment, or more than two or three, here regarding the subject of the actual piece Sean posted?
“It doesnt bear thinking about. Gay love on an oil-rig in the Sea of Okhotsk. A kind of Russian Brokeback Mountain, with sea instead of mountains, and or rather mountains of red-tape instead of real mountains”
And a bear.
Newspaper columns do not count as “work.”
According to whom? You?
What a load of bollocks.
Nope, according to just about anybody.
Guess what? Blogs don’t count as work either.
So, we have now made clear that Tim has in fact not read Klein’s book, and so is continuing his usual habit of attacking his enemies arguments in their weakest, most dumbed-down, Strawman Walking form.
Which, in academia, is a crime.
Nope, according to just about anybody.
Using the Mike Averko definition of “just about anybody”, maybe.
Do we discount the columns of David Halberstam as not being included in his work? No. Nobody does. They are part of his output, part of his work, reading his columns is reading his work. The same with Klein.
So, we have now made clear that Tim has in fact not read Klein’s book, and so is continuing his usual habit of attacking his enemies arguments in their weakest, most dumbed-down, Strawman Walking form.
Of course, attacking arguments presented in a newspaper column doesn’t count, because they are not really part of the author’s output, according to Chris. Which is utter bollocks.
Which, in academia, is a crime.
I don’t know about academia, but in the real world anyone who stumps up a 10-1 bet and loses would have the good grace to either pay up or shut up, not start moving the goalposts and making stuff up.
A “work” represents a person’s developed thought in edited, polished form. In the modern world, it is usually peer-reviewed, with footnotes. Thus, to attack a person’s arguments, that is what one attacks. To not have read the work for somebody interested in taking a position on a person’s views is laziness, arrogance, or a combination of the two.
500-word columns written for a crap newspaper’s lay audience are, at best, supplementary to that work. Or perhaps we should also include Naomi Klein’s personal correspondence, daily to-do lists, and things she moans out while having an orgasm. (If “ooooh, Ger!!!!” turns out to be one of them, we’ll be in trouble.”
It’s been so long since we’ve had a flamewar! This is awesome!!!!
A “work” represents a person’s developed thought in edited, polished form. In the modern world, it is usually peer-reviewed, with footnotes.
You are simply assigning your own definition of what constitutes a journalist’s or author’s work.
I ask you again, can we dismiss David Halberstam’s columns and only criticise his books? What about Robert Fisk, from whom the vast majority of output is in columns?
To not have read the work for somebody interested in taking a position on a person’s views is laziness, arrogance, or a combination of the two.
No it’s not. If somebody writes economically illiterate nonsense in a newspaper, then is fair to ascribe economic illiteracy to that person without being compelled to go to the bother and expense of reading their books.
500-word columns written for a crap newspaper’s lay audience are, at best, supplementary to that work.
At best? Again, you are simply stating your opinions as fact. And The Guardian is hardly some crap newspaper, it is one of Britain’s most established quality dailys.
”… things she moans out while having an orgasm. (If “ooooh, Ger!!!!” turns out to be one of them, we’ll be in trouble.””
I’ll have to check my records to see if I boned her. My database is down at the moment!
“I’ll have to check my records to see if I boned her. My database is down at the moment!”
For Tim’s sake, I hope you took notes!
Who provoked this unprovoked war? That’s the kveschen!
Not to get too deep into this Naomi Klein love/hate fest, but I would agree that for an academic, their “work” is well-cited papers and projects, etc.
However, Klein isn’t an academic. She is a journalist (by education) and author.
So, is her primary work her newspaper columns or her books … seems to be at the crux of the argument/bet.
She has 3 books, first one published in 2000. She was a journalist before that, working as an intern and then “editor” it appears. Most of her newspaper columns, as near as I can tell, came about after her publishing her first book.
I’m included to say that she is an author and part-time freelance newspaper columnist. Of course, her education in journalism makes that a sticky decision.
In either case, she is definitely not an economist. Journalists, strictly speaking, gather and report data, quotes, or facts (or as close to the facts as can be ascertained). She forms many conclusions based upon that gathering of information that range far from her field of expertise. She seems to be more of a pop icon than a researcher, economist, or academician, which should leave anyone with a technical or analytical mind questioning the validity of her conclusions.
That’s my 2 cents. You boys can continue to duke it out.
Does she have a French accent? She’s a little bit broad in the hips for my taste, but I’d have to say I’d hit that (provided she has the accent).
It’s been so long since we’ve had a flamewar! This is awesome!!!!
Who provoked this unprovoked war? That’s the kveschen!
————————————————
World events, and our passion for discussing them (+some free time on our hands)?
” She seems to be more of a pop icon than a researcher, economist, or academician, which should leave anyone with a technical or analytical mind questioning the validity of her conclusions.”
I have no opinion of Klein whatsoever. I’ve never read her.
Klein is not an economist, so criticising her for not being one is strange. Not being an economist does not mean you have no authority to speak on the subject. In fact, it’s that elitist line of argument that’s largely contributed to the chaos we’re witnessing in the market today. Like Freud, the “free market” might be a theory with lots to endorse it, but it’s founded on the patronizing idea that one size fits all, and if you don’t think it fits you, you are either ignorant fools, or there is something abnormal with you.
I’ve never read her Guardian columns, but I have read “The Shock Doctrine”, and would call it classic investigative reporting, compiling source materials and eyewitness accounts to expose a pattern of economics. You can debate if this type of economic system is more or less beneficial to the common good, or you can debate if it is intentionally designed and coordinated by some elite cabal or is instead so prevalent because it is a self-propagating, path of least resistance type of system. But you can’t really debate the source materials and first hand accounts of how economic decisions have impacted the daily lives of people. If you have a worldview in which you don’t believe economic systems have a responsibility to be just and fair, you’re not going to agree with Klein’s condemnation of disaster capitalism. If on the other hand, you do, you’re probably going to appreciate the clear, concise way she’s laid out the ways in which our current economic system has failed to meet this responsibility. It’s pretty straightforward.
I’ve never read Chomsky and don’t see anything new in these excerpts. But one thing I’d like to hear people talk more about it the Cold War being one of ideologies (at least officially). What’s going on between the US and Russia has nothing to do with ideologies. It’s more a turf war… So yes, more akin to imperialism.