Politics

Noam Chomsky on 1968

Published 08 May 2008

Nineteen sixty-eight was one exciting moment in a much larger movement. It spawned a whole range of movements. There wouldn't have been an international global solidarity movement, for instance, without the events of 1968. It was enormous, in terms of human rights, ethnic rights, a concern for the environment, too.

The Pentagon Papers (the 7,000-page, top-secret US government report into the Vietnam War) are proof of this: right after the Tet Offensive, the business world turned against the war, because they thought it was too costly, even though there were proposals within the government - and we know this now - to send in more American troops. Then LBJ announced he wouldn't be sending any more troops to Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers tell us that, because of the fear of growing unrest in the cities, the government had to end the war - it wasn't sure that it was going to have enough troops to send to Vietnam and enough troops on the domestic front to quell the riots.

One of the most interesting reactions to come out of 1968 was in the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which believed there was a "crisis of democracy" from too much participation of the masses. In the late 1960s, the masses were supposed to be passive, not entering into the public arena and having their voices heard. When they did, it was called an "excess of democracy" and people feared it put too much pressure on the system. The only group that never expressed its opinions too much was the corporate group, because that was the group whose involvement in politics was acceptable.

The commission called for more moderation in democracy and a return to passivity. It said the "institutions of indoctrination" - schools, churches - were not doing their job, and these had to be harsher.

The more reactionary standard was much harsher in its reaction to the events of 1968, in that it tried to repress democracy, which has succeeded to an extent - but not really, because these social and activist movements have now grown. For example, it was unimaginable in 1968 that there would be an international Solidarity group in 1980.

But democracy is even stronger now than it was in 1968. You have to remember that, during Vietnam, there was no opposition at the beginning of the war. It did develop, but only six years after John F Kennedy attacked South Vietnam and troop casualties were mounting. However, with the Iraq War, opposition was there from the very beginning, before an attack was even initiated. The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched.

There are other differences, too. In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice.

There is also far greater opposition to oppression now than there was before. For example, the US used routinely to support or initiate military coups in Latin America. But the last time the US supported a military coup was in 2002 in Venezuela, and even then they had to back off very quickly because there was public opposition. They just can't do the kinds of things they used to.

So, I think the impact of 1968 was long-lasting and, overall, positive.

Post this article to

63 comments from readers

greed n power
08 May 2008 at 13:15

Fact is that the criminal war against Iraq has cost over 650 000 lives: woman, children, fathers whole families...and it is still going on. Why are the responsible culprits not taken to the Haag and charged with crimes against humanity? Bush, Cheeny, Blair.... and the US weapon industry. Why are people with your profile Mr Chomski are not making more waves to reintroduce some form of justice against those criminals?

Cybertiger
08 May 2008 at 17:12

Anybody care to recall what happened on 16 March 1968? That incident taught me all I need to know about the bestial capability of the American soldier ... and the quality of American justice.

Derek
08 May 2008 at 20:15

Yes, I for one remember what happened on 16th March 1968 in My Lay, and what Second Lieutenant William Calley and his troops did there. i also remember who was in charge of the investigation, one Major, now retired as General, Colin Powell. I wish I shared Mr Chomsky optimism. I dont. From Jainin to Falujah. From the theft of the 2000 election in the US to the whole Iraq debacle there is no end to rapacious use of power and there is never likely to be

taghioff.info
09 May 2008 at 15:03

A lot of it is to do with the media (which will come as no surprise to Noam.) Humans don't like seeing other humans dieing. If they are in another world it is easier, but if you see it in your living room and they somehow feel like neighbours it is harder.

It is called species recognition, and seems to be one of the main bases for human progress, aside from increased wealth that is. With natural resources running low, we may have yet more need of it in future.

mclaughlinmike
09 May 2008 at 20:35

Like Derek, I find it difficult to share Chomsky's optimisim. Organized capital has strengthened since 1968 while organized labour has become much weaker. Organized capital thus controls the political process, while organized labour (or anyone who is not a millionaire) is forced to go along with the ride, so to speak.

jer420
10 May 2008 at 14:16

'Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice'

I don't recall McCain mentioning this as an option.

gladRocks
10 May 2008 at 14:22

Wow, I feel like I'm in COMMUNIST nirvana!

toddwil
10 May 2008 at 14:29

Gladrocks.

No kidding.

A bunch of lefties getting their shine on and re-making everything to fit their worldview. America is simply evil don't you know? Why don't they just say it without all the words.

jdcarmine
10 May 2008 at 14:49

Some, myself included, believe there is genuine value in Western Civilization from the Pre-Socratics, through Christianity, and into the present age of Liberal Democracy. That means we ought to defend Western Civilization to defend the Democracy you adulate. Sorry, reality actually is real and it is very very messy, but fully worth embracing.

tonypal
10 May 2008 at 15:04

Noam Chomsky - the intellectual for people who aren't nearly as smart as they think they are.

tonypal
10 May 2008 at 15:07

Question to "greed n power." Please detail for us why the Iraq war is criminal. I suggest you consult article 2 of the Constitution, plus the relevant Supreme Court rulings, before you tell us about declarations of war.

AtlantaSteve
10 May 2008 at 16:33

From Cybertiger...."bestial capability of the American soldier ....". The Chomsky lapdogs need to seriously revisit their world view from a wide-angle lens as rather than the straw snapshots that are easy to conclude diabolical plots by the evil US power-brokers. To sit back and throw grenades is the path of least resistance. Do you people even vote? Do you read a variety of news publications? Thos e who beleive that their map for navigating life is complete and finished are doomed to live a sad life of frustrated ignorance...

pipinki
10 May 2008 at 16:39

1968 was the peak of leftist populism in the US....every year we get further from it, the ideology becomes more bastardized and absurd....imagine, voting for someone who'll raise taxes on corporations, forcing them to lay off thousands....is it worth all that concrete misery just to attempt to validate your fallacious ideology? for the democrats, I guess the answer is a resounding yes

chichomalanga
10 May 2008 at 16:40

Typical liberal revisionism. In fact 1968 led to millions murdered in Cambodia, Vietnam, Ethiopia and Central America as a new anti-American elite attacked every American institution and the US retreated from promoting democracy abroad.

We also now face an energy crisis because we have not built a new nuclear power plant or oil refinery since then. Our elites refuse to buy American made products while they cry crocodile tears for the American worker. Thanks to 1968, which shifted control of the Democratic party from America's workers to anti-American snobs like Chomsky!

When Obama said Tuesday after winning North Carolina that he is not afraid to talk to the enemy, like "Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy did", no one dares correct him, and ask which enemy did Roosevelt and Truman speak with? Answer: none. More liberal nonsense. As to Kennedy, historians unanimously describe Kennedy's 1961 meeting with Kruschev in Vienna as a foreign policy disaster. No wonder Obama is the liberals dandy!

Prospector
10 May 2008 at 16:57

JFK attacked South Viet Nam? Chomsky simply makes stuff up with the hope of appealing to his own "useful idiots" who care not for facts. The U.S. along with UN partners were allied with the Republic of South Viet Nam to repel communist invasion.

Prospector
10 May 2008 at 17:05

Lowry has a far more lucid remembrance of 1968.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_taint_...

This nation can only heal from the violent tantrums of 1968 after the last baby boomer dies off. The "wasted generation" of late 1960's took credit for the hard work of the "greatest generation" and continue to play-act at being relevant to history.

panacea
10 May 2008 at 17:06

If we had more functional democracy as opposed to fantasied democracy, people like Chomsky would have been influential in the political arena. Unfortunately, Mr. Chomsky's opinions and analyses are only supported by the regular folks without any power.

To all those seemingly pro-Western/pro-American, anti-everything else folks commenting here: If you are truly democratic, civilized, and more advanced why are you afraid of and resentful against people who are different than you? You should have put your fears and inner conflicts aside, you should have conquered them, you are better, aren't you? What is the problem here?

What article of the Constitution is keeping you from being an empathic human being?

jeffpwest
10 May 2008 at 17:23

jeffpwest
10 May 2008 at 17:26

background: 57 year old microelectronics engineer from oklahoma... i think the internet is already a force for equalizing the institutionalized advantages of the status quo. i really don't think obama would have had a chance w/o it. without it you get trickle down economics and everyone seemingly content with that inequitable idea. with it you get trickle up pain. but a lot of what we're experiencing right now, i think, is the pendulum swinging left after moving a bit too far right. for example, according to an economist (british news magazine) poll, america's left is to the right of britain's left. we'll swing the other way, but there are huge forces to keep things from moving too far in either direction, especially too far left in the u.s. we all know where the money is. the other interesting change since i was young is the reduction in the top marginal income tax rate. when i was young it was a middle class country by design of the tax code; the top marginal rate was 90% -- you only kept 10 cents on the dollar if you won a big contract or the lottery. now it's what, 30%. that makes it much easier to accumulate wealth and power. bill gates could build a big army and take over countries if he chose. lucky for the world he'd rather deal with disease in africa. jw

davidbeyer
10 May 2008 at 17:27

Derek,

I consider myself to be a moderate, fairly knowledgeable, and relatively politically aware citizen, but I have been unable to determine exactly how the 2000 election was stolen. Could you please explain to me what people are taking about when they say it was stolen.

As a Florida resident, I have done a lot of research on this issue and as I understand things several independant agencies, including the New York Times, completed an unofficial recount of the Florida votes and the results showed that Bush won Florida. The margin of his win was small, but it was a win nonetheless. The simple fact that the end result appears to be accurate seems to belay the idea that the 2000 election was stolen.

It is further my understanding that pursuant to Federal Constitutional Law the Governor of each State ratifies the elections results of that State to the Federal government. Accordingly, if there had been a dispute as to the validity of the election results, as between the original count and the recount, Governor Bush would have held the responsibility of designating which results would stand as the official results. It seems highly unlikely that President Bush's brother, when faced with competing results, would have ratified the results unfavorable to his brother. This is especially so were the results favorable to his brother were ultimately determined to be correct, thereby indicating that they were not so dramatically errant as to make it inherently incredible for the Governor to ratify these results.

It is further my understanding that Al Gore short circuited this process by bringing the matter before the Florida Court system and making it an issue for the judiciary. He did, after all, file the first suit in this case. Effectively, this move did two things. First, it absolved Governor Bush of any political fall-out from a decision to ratify the original results in the face of competing results, because he was never put in the position of needing to make that choice.

Second, it placed at issue the Florida voting system and interrelationship with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because each Florida county had a different standard for how it was counting the votes. The overwhelming majority of the recounted votes were in areas that favored Al Gore, i.e., Palm Beach County. Those areas were allowing partially punched ballots, "hanging chads," and dimpled ballots to be counted. Areas where Bush was strongest were not being recounted and were not providing votes to the types of improperly executed ballots that were going to be counted in areas like Palm Beach County. In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court merely ruled that one State may not count the ballots of some of its citizens in a manner that permits for greater participation while simultaneously failing to count the similarly executed ballots of other citizens.

This seems entirely fair to me. At a minimum, I cannot see how the election was stolen. If you possess contrary information or additional facts for my consideration, I welcome your comments. However, given my understanding of the whole debacle it was not a stolen election.

jeffpwest
10 May 2008 at 17:34

"prospector" makes a good point. we weren't the only folks trying to keep south vietnam (and south korea) from going communist. i know the aussies were there. don't know what other countries contributed. but with hindsight, i'm not so sure too many people are proud of that sacrifice and the million dead vietnamese in contrast to the sacrifice our ancestors made in europe and asia in WWII to stop fascism in europe and asia. pity we can't be more pro democracy and less anti socialist/communist. live and let live. jw

sduncan
10 May 2008 at 18:09

Yes Mr. Chomsky you should all be very proud of yourselves. Let's review your accompishments

-The defeat of Hubert Humphrey. A staunch supporter of social justice and one of the strongest advocates of civil rights in Washington.

-The election of Richard M. Nixon. Not much needs to be said about that.

-Prolonging the Vietnam war by five years. See above.

-Alienating the working class from the Democratic Party shattering the New Deal coalition and paving the way for Reagan and Bush.

-And let's not forget the most important: Making it chic to love thugs and monsters like Mao, Arafat, Guevera, and Chavez. They're not murderers and crooks-- even though they do everything a Nixon or a Bush does to their own people and much worse-- no no as long as they're in other countries they're freedom fighters.

vrob
10 May 2008 at 18:22

davidbeyer, you cite talking points, legal arguments and newspapers surveys, but ignore the underlying reality: as a result of the Palm Beach butterfly ballot 60,000 elderly Jewish voters voted for Buchanan. There may not be proof that this was done deliberately by Republican operatives though I vaguely recall serious questions raised to this effect. There are other questions about minorites waiting hours in line etc. Regardless, the basic fact of Florida 2000 is this: more voters went to the polls that day intending to vote for Gore than Bush. You don't seriously contest this point do you?

vrob
10 May 2008 at 18:23

davidbeyer, you cite talking points, legal arguments and newspapers surveys, but ignore the underlying reality: as a result of the Palm Beach butterfly ballot 60,000 elderly Jewish voters voted for Buchanan. There may not be clear proof that this was planned deliberately by Republican operatives though I vaguely recall serious questions raised to this effect. There are other questions about minorites waiting hours in line, being turned away, etc. Regardless, the basic fact of Florida 2000 is this: more voters went to the polls that day intending to vote for Gore than Bush. You don't seriously contest this point do you?

StephenDecatur
10 May 2008 at 18:43

I have to agree with most of what sduncan said. I like the fact that Chomsky is a non-conformist. Certainly, the world would be better off with a more intellectually curious populace.

However, just like Chomsky, I have reaped the benefits of American imperialism. I'm not talking about individual wealth. I'm talking about the stability that we enjoy in the U.S. as long as we can point to threats from the outside, real or assumed, at which we can focus our human emotions of fear, vanity, and lust for conquest.

But, by giving Chomsky a pedestal from which to speak, he keeps the system in balance. Without people like Chomsky, Zinn, Carter, and Sontag, we become fascists. Without people like Wyrich, Wolfowitz, Pipes, Feith, Bybee, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Krystol, Bush, Netanyahu, and Alberto Gonzalez, we turn that energy onto ourselves.

The solution, I think, is to allow people like Chomsky and Sontag to encourage our more peaceful emotions and to criticize the largess of Western society while allowing the Right to keep us as vigilant as we need to be against violent anti-Western forces.

lstm1
10 May 2008 at 18:45

It is fascinating to see those who still are fighting the election of 2000. They point to the butterfly ballots, but conveniently ignore the issue of military absentee ballots. For those who don't remember, Gore and his lawyers were tasked with challenging every absentee ballot submitted by soldiers overseas. They were quite successful, and more than 30% of all military absentee ballots in Florida were never counted.

Furthermore, as was already mentioned, there have been counts and recounts by newspapers. None concluded that Gore was the rightful winner.

As for the butterfly ballots, I actually do think that many of those who voted for Buchanan had no intention of doing so. So? Should we go back and count some of the Buchanan votes as going for Gore? It is a ridiculous argument, as the "fixes" that Democrats have proposed would never be constitutional. Furthermore, while the Democrats wanted to reallocate the butterfly ballots, they conveniently ignore the military absentee ballots which were never counted. So much for democracy.

Careless
10 May 2008 at 18:49

vrob, the fact that thousands of Florida voters were too stupid or senile to figure out a butterfly ballot does not lead to a conclusion of a stolen election.

StephenDecatur
10 May 2008 at 18:54

vrob,

Your facts are all either made up or, in some cases, they're true but deceptive. Cite your source regarding the number of elderly Jewish voters in Palm Beach County. I don't think that you know how many elderly Jewish voters in Palm Beach County voted for Buchanan. Worse, it's an irrelevant point. You have no idea how many people intended to vote for Gore or Bush. Some people marked both Gore and Bush. For whom did they intend to vote?

Your point about "the basic fact of Florida 2000", thus, is based on an unprovable theory: that more people intended to vote for Gore than intended to vote for Bush. It's not a fact at all. And by calling it a fact, you just continue to throw more mud at an already muddy picture.

That said, there was a definitive recount performed by Price Waterhouse and funded by a pool of media sources. This recount held that under all 3 of the most reliable vote tabulation methods, Bush won Florida in 2000 and, thus, the 2000 presidential election. I'm very glad to know that we have better judges on the Florida Supreme Court today than the incompetent, meddling judges who were there in 2000 who tried to thwart the will of the people by creating a third recount in Florida based on their own opinion of what they wanted the law to be.

Scalia was right. A miscarriage of justice was prevented in 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court kept the Florida Supreme Court from changing the results of the election.

StephenDecatur
10 May 2008 at 18:57

vrob,

The butterfly ballot was designed and submitted at the insistence of Carol Roberts, a Democratic activist. You should google her. Stop trying to create conspiracy theories to invent your own history. You might fool some of the lightweights who read these blogs.

skylane95
10 May 2008 at 19:10

Has anyone ever heard of Prague Spring- and how it was abruptly ended on August 21, 1968?

It appears that no one recognizes the brutality of the left.

vrob
10 May 2008 at 19:38

Sorry folks I'm far from a conspiracy theorist- just because your purported facts may be more provable than the alternative does not make them true. If you truly believe most of the 60,000 Buchanan votes in Palm Beach were not meant for Gore keep dreaming. As for whether this constitutes a stolen election there is of course no hard evidence but in arriving at my conclusions I will allow myself to inject common sense. You stick to Republican talking points. And by the way the equal protection argument endorsed by the Supreme Court was such utter nonsense the opinion limited itself to the case at hand.

tonypal
10 May 2008 at 20:24

Vrob:

As a Republican and a Bush supporter, I agree with your assertion that most of those people intended to vote for Gore. But doesn't that really speak volumes as to the intellectual abilities of all those liberal democrats, who regularly deride Pres. Bush's intellect?

You might consider the fact that the Florida panhandle is decidedly republican. The networks prematurely called Florida for Gore. The panhandle is in a different time zone, and many republicans went home instead of waiting in line to vote.

Lastly, it was Gore himself, with his brilliant, Harvard law professor attorney Larry Tribe who sought to limit vote recounts to districts favorable to Gore.

As for any arguments that the Supreme Court made a political decision, how about the Florida Supremen Court, with 8 of 9 justices appointed by Democrat Governors. Are we to simply dismiss the political leanings of that court?

PCMAN
10 May 2008 at 21:26

Perhaps we could bring fairness to the electoral process by redefining the majority for an endorsed democrat to be 43%

yellowdogdave
10 May 2008 at 21:36

JFK attacked S Vietnam in 1962? I hope the rest of your facts are better than that----need to remember we fought with S Vietnam not against them and no combat troops were in Vietnam until LBJ sent them in 65..I was around then and recall it very well

Carl Jones
10 May 2008 at 21:52

Mr Chomsky, I and many others wised up a long time ago, that you are nothing but a NWO puppet. Tell me, why there were miles of US military hardware outside Sigon and this just before the famous US retreat?

Vietnam was about corporate profits...there was no political will to win and we can see the same today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We hear the MSM tell us the US economy is in the dumps, because of Iraq. But the fact is, over $3 trillion has been spent on Iraq and this is US debt....hardly any, has been paid back, but most of this money has been injected into the US economy and the US government has received tax revenue on this spending....

.....so lets just imagine this debt money hadn`t been spent....where would the US economy be today if the Iraq war hadn`t been faught??

Your agenda is redundant, you`d be better off spending you remaining years wrting for The Sun.

vanguardman
10 May 2008 at 22:47

The great thing about Chomsky is his consistancy.

He lacked common sense in the 60's, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's and now in the decade of 2000-2010.

Atta baby, Noam. Never changing means never having to think. Viva la revolucion!

ginny
10 May 2008 at 23:43

My Dad was a marine who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1967 and then joined the marines. He did 2 tours of Vietnam, and volunteered for the 2nd one so that those with families wouldn't have to.

Those who refer, as a previous poster did, to American soldiers, as war criminals with "bestial capability" are in fact bigoted and close-minded, while professing to be open-minded. Yes, My Lai is not a proud moment for our country, but we should be careful of what conclusions we draw from the incident. To then stereotype all American soldiers as having "bestial capability" is a shameful conclusion.

panxman
11 May 2008 at 00:42

The fact that protests were not organized early in the Vietnam war is not proof of democracy being more active now. It is proof of the swiftness of information dissemination today. In the youtube and google and wiki society of today, we can "protest" policy without actually being involved or engaging in government. I remember all the public protests that took place at the beginning of the war but where are all those "activists" now? It is not enough to attend one rally or sign one petition and feel good about yourself. I sadly am guilty of this exact same behaviour but I see it as a "Scarlett Letter" on society today rather than a "Badge of Honour".

gristo
11 May 2008 at 01:02

It's amazing how much damage these sixties re-treads did to the global community back in the 60s, and through to this day -- and simply disgusting how proud they are of it. They constantly re-live their most happiest of times, when they were getting laid and having delusions of great importance, coupled with remembrances of their young faces and bodies and minds. So shitty that they now have to fit every scenario into this narrow test-tube of times, now matter how ridiculous or inappropriate. Vietnam = Iraq, etc.

Just imagine where the world would be if it were not for the likes of this fart, and his hypocritical excrement on paper.

Reading Chump-ski makes me want to shower.

mountain-ear
11 May 2008 at 01:29

"Fact is that the criminal war against Iraq has cost over 650 000 lives: woman, children, fathers whole families...and it is still going on."

Never mind that the "650,000" figure was acquired by deeply flawed methodology or that the vast majority of those killed have been killed by terrorists. What's important to remember is that Saddam's adventures, domestic and foreign, resulted in the deaths of 2 million human beings. That's 6,000 a month, -----for 27 years.

Someday I hope to come across a leftist who cares about these forgotten ones more than he values grousing about Bush.

DKenyon
11 May 2008 at 01:50

This is what I love and have fought to defend about this country. Fools like Chumpsky and his band of truly uninformed lapdogs can freely preach their "holier then thou" rubish that they accuse everyone else of doing without impunity or risk of jail. I just urge everyone to read "Do as I say, not as I do" to get yourself informed on the hypocrisy of Chumpsky and his comrades.

Rod
11 May 2008 at 03:02

Norm has a curious twist on the ending of the Vietnam War. Here is what really happened. LBJ conducted hands on policy during the war. He feared China and would not bomb the north. When Nixon took office he visited China and got their reading of the situation. He then bombed Hypong Harbor which forced NV to sue for peace in Paris. The armistice was signed by all parties and overseen by Henry Kissinger. Almost before the ink was dry the Democrats in Congress, intent on surrender, withdrew funding for the war including funding for withdrawal. Once NV saw this, they abandoned the peace agreement and resumed fighting. All the details are described in Henry Kissinger’s book, Years of Renewal.

realworld2008
11 May 2008 at 03:25

"Democrats in Congress, intent on surrender..." Some things never change. Semper Fi...

lgstarr
11 May 2008 at 04:42

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_taint_...

Cybertiger
11 May 2008 at 10:51

@ginny

"To then stereotype all American soldiers as having "bestial capability" is a shameful conclusion."

I agree - such stereotping is unfair on the beasts of field ... who woud never carry out such atrocious acts as those perpetrated at My Lai on 16 March 1968.

And it is also my conclusion that the beasts of the jungle are also incapable of such atrocity as carried out at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Fallujah, Haditha etc, etc ....

Go figure, ginny!

Cybertiger
11 May 2008 at 10:56

@ginny

The murdering scum of the Marine Corps are not to be subect to a death penalty trial for their beastly crimes at Haditha. Why is that, ginny?

zig317
11 May 2008 at 13:15

IF the...."bestial capability of the American soldier ...." is to be believed. I guess the 150,000,000 murders by communists in the past century should be considered benevolence

jstraw
11 May 2008 at 13:22

I've bee a "conservative" since I first started voting. Nonethelss, I've never quite hated the sixties like my brethren, insofar as it was in large part about the fissure of the left and the establishment liberals.

The left was largely right about the liberals - that they were both authoritarian and weak, even if it was wrong about its own worldview. New Deal liberalism was out of gas and needed to be shown the door.

The center-right which came to power as a result was largely irrelevant to the sixties, having supported civil rights at the beginning no less than those who got credit for that, yet benefitting from the backlash against those who did get the credit/blame.

Given the very short span of time that free speech, civil rights, mass higher education, technological change and the demographic consequences therefrom, it is a mazing to me that it wasn't a far more problematic decade (epoch).

All this said, Chomsky is a lightweight public intellectual who, like most academics, should stick to his area of expertise where his ax-grinding doesn't compromise his work.

taghioff.info
11 May 2008 at 14:15

Hold, on just because that world is often a bad, bad place, does not mean that nothing has improved. You cannot glue the whole of human history into one neat story that consists of either a plus or a minus.

yebiga
11 May 2008 at 14:50

After the 60s, we allowed the humanities departments of our universities to become monopolized by post-marxist ideology.

We have allowed this to occur because most of us fail to understand the significance of the humanities, when it come to the arts, literature, film. In reality, when it comes to the influence of our culture the humanities set the agenda.

the post marxists have so poisoned the humanities over the last 40 years that a normal person could not survive the nonsense of an undergraduate degree in humanities. subsequently, we have en masse abandoned the arts to study for a professions. And left the arts to weirdos like Chomsky.

As a result, when it comes to history, philosophy, and politics, in particular, we are bumbling ignorant idiots. Our literature and film has become so formularized only comic cartoons, simpsons or family guy, can even dare address serious topics.

We need to unshackle the Western mind from the perverse post-marxist narratives. Re-acquaint our selves with our culture and thereby re-invigorate the western mind and its art.

mustng66
11 May 2008 at 16:03

Reading Chomsky is like having to deal with a perverted pedophile one on one. The meeting makes you feel so dirty and violated afterwards that you don't know how you will ever get the disgusting stink and slime off of you. Crawl back under the slimey rock you slithered out from under you commie. More people have the world over because of AH's like him and their socialist drivel.

Cybertiger
11 May 2008 at 16:34

@zig731

"IF the...."bestial capability of the American soldier ...." is to be believed. I guess the 150,000,000 murders by communists in the past century should be considered benevolence"

I thought it was islamofascist terrorists who had replaced the red terrors under the American bed.

ginny
11 May 2008 at 16:41

To cybertiger:

Did you actually read what I wrote???

As I said, My Lai was not a proud moment in our country's history, and I don't know what punishment would fit the crime. However, cybertiger, you characterize all American military as having "bestial capability". What an ignorant, prejudiced analysis!

zig317
11 May 2008 at 16:48

Cybertiger as a leftist you will never be able to take a " high moral road". We just laugh at you.

Carl Jones
11 May 2008 at 17:31

ginny, can you list 5 proud USofA moments, because I can`t think of one?

Carl Jones
11 May 2008 at 17:45

zig317; I find it strange and rather shallow to abuse individual commentors with the left/right tag. The NWO uses the left/right democracy mechanism to control its aganda and falsely assume the "high moral ground". As they have done over Burma, which has been ravaged by a NWO manipulated cyclone.

zig317
11 May 2008 at 18:26

Man, Carl go back to the sand box with your paranoid delusions. I know that critical thinking is a waste of time, however, just lose the anger thing. Be sure to take your all meds and stay happy its Mothers Day.

Cybertiger
11 May 2008 at 19:49

@zig713 from the USofAnger

"I know that critical thinking is a waste of time, however, just lose the anger thing."

Classical projection! I hope you're getting some therapy, some anger management perhaps - before you resume military service in the Marine Corps overseas - like ginny's proud daddy.

PS. I'm optimistic that Americans will huff and they'll puff and one day stop the world spinning on its leftist axis of evil.

Carl Jones
11 May 2008 at 19:54

zig317, what anger....I`m making serious comments, this is supposed to be a serious forum.

YOU are soooo NWO...."take your meds and stay happy"....yes, this is the NWO way...life on prozac, recreational drugs and the ultimate fix, a NWO mortgage millstone around your neck.....the best buzz you`ll ever get.LOL....sorry, I need another LOL

Maybe you can help ginny out....can YOU list 5 proud USofA moments. Before you do that, as it will take rather a long time, could you "please" explain what you mean by "paraniod delusions".....before you answer, check you have clearence from Langley.LOL

Cybertiger
11 May 2008 at 19:59

@ginny, daughter of a proud American Marine Corps killer

"However, cybertiger, you characterize all American military as having "bestial capability". What an ignorant, prejudiced analysis!"

It's Democracy, stupid!

Sorry, ginny, I didn't mean ALL American soldiers are capable of doing beastly things to other critters. I meant to say that a democratic majority of American soldiers are capable of doing some pretty unpleasant things when they're playing away with islamofascists, leftist fundamentals and other such like undesirables.

joetheragman
11 May 2008 at 21:09

jkl;jkl;j

joetheragman
11 May 2008 at 21:17

puddleheads,

the world is full of catastrophes and death and evil. i do not know why your puny brains cannot accept the fact that man, yes man, you, me and your old aunt betty are capable of the vilest evil. That fact means that there is a necessary use of force to stop it, by a democratically elected govt, with a 4th estate watching it, and the ability to change direction every 2 to 4 years. What about this is so hard to understand.

Now, if you think the American Soldier is in itself an evil entity, then have the balls to state that you are an isolationist and vote accordingly. Please dont put partisanship into this, because that is just cowardice. Think outside of the group for once. If you think we should invade Darfur...if you think weshould have bombed Serbia for Bosnia and Kosovo, then have the BALLS to say that we should have taken out the king of horror, Saddam Hussein. If you cannot do that, PLEASE explain to me how you can make the justification for the other wars

Cybertiger
11 May 2008 at 21:42

Please it be that Joe the Ragamuffin is a puddle head ...

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.