|
jeffmagic32 (September 4, 2008 at 7:48 pm)
In "After the Cataclysm" published after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky/Herman say 25,000 people were killed in Cambodia. (real number is about 2 million). Years later in "Radical Priorities" Chomsky says "The harshest critics claim that perhaps 100,00 people have been slaughtered". Also that "the evacuation of Phnom Pehn, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives. This is shameless genocide denial.
Chomskyan (September 4, 2008 at 6:57 pm)
That's a typical elitist view, to equate a population self-managing their own affairs to mob rule. I suspect it's based on a contempt for common people.It's beyond the scope of this medium to go through all the details, but I would suggest you check out some good primers on anarchist thought. Anarchism by Daniel Guerin comes to mind. Also, Chomsky on Anarchism, where he goes into more details on this ideas of what a participatory society would look like.
Chomskyan (September 4, 2008 at 6:50 pm)
Can you cite any source where he supported a "leftist" genocide? A quote maybe?
MurderSoul216 (September 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm)
Mob rule then basically?
Chomskyan (September 4, 2008 at 2:18 pm)
Federation is defined: an organization or group within which smaller divisions have some degree of internal autonomy. Again, it does not have anything to do with a government, since the organization of such a society is bottom up, participatory, based on free association, not hierarchy. BTW it's not really HIS definition of anarchism, but the classical definition from a core of the anarchist movement, as he tried to explain during the interview.
MurderSoul216 (September 4, 2008 at 10:55 am)
So then he wants democratic control over everything, without a government, yet somehow having a large central government to institute socialism?
Chomskyan (September 4, 2008 at 8:13 am)
What he said was "democratic control of communities, of workplaces, federal structures built on systems of free associations..." it had nothing to do with any government or state.Here democratic means it is participatory, not the narrow sense in which you seem to interpret the word.
MurderSoul216 (September 3, 2008 at 2:54 pm)
His definition of anarchism is flawed. How would there be a democratic government in a stateless society?
ahmedmahmoodmctaggar (September 3, 2008 at 1:08 am)
yeah he is a legend
jeffmagic32 (August 31, 2008 at 8:34 am)
he never saw a leftist genocide he didn't support |
