Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism | Hacker News Reader

Noam Chomsky on the cruelty of American imperialism

economist.com

165 pointsboramalper93 comments

I respect Chomsky very much, and I have learned a lot from him. But I do wonder to what extent his views are based on a possibly over-optimistic view of the world's potential, and a refusal or inability to accept that the the universe might be fundamentally unjust and that life is not always dignified or sacred. I would like to share his hopeful outlook (hopeful in the sense that he seems to think there ought to be a counterfactual world where everyone behaves decently towards each other and the planet), but it seems to me that it is in the nature of life to want power, and it is in the nature of power to control anything that threatens it, and so conflict, struggle and might making right are intrinsic (but perhaps deplorable) features of the world.

Nature might be like this, but we can maybe build an artificial system which is not.

It is interesting to wonder what this might look like. There are still limits to what is physically possible, we only have finite resources. I also personally value having a diversity of people and views. I wonder if at least from the points of view of some of the inhabitants the world will be unfair. That said, we should always try and do better.

Think about how powerful it would be to make people believe that, though. Then, by deduction, since power desires to increase its capacity, necessarily its power must be overblown :^) semi-/s

I think it's a bit weird to talk of the universe being just or unjust. The universe is what it is. To me, an action taken by a person can be just or unjust, and a person can be said to be just or unjust based on a sort of average of their actions.

As for the nature of life, I don't think that we can go from, say, a tree casting shade and thus making life harder for other plants being natural, or predators being natural, to saying that compassion and cooperation in humans is unnatural. Quite the opposite. Human beings are, from birth, naturally compassionate and cooperative as well as the opposite. We are "capable of such beautiful dreams and such horrible nightmares". But a lone human is always a very fragile creature, in fact I'd even say that it is more unnatural than anything else. We are, most of us, social beings who not only benefit from but require the company and cooperation of others to function and flourish.

And of course, protecting yourself and your dependents from threats is natural. We are social, but also tribal. But when do we decide that another group is a threat? Why do we take from others, or harm them? To me, it seems the answer to that will usually be out of fear and or out of want. And while those might occur naturally, they can occur more or less, depending on circumstance and outlook.

I think Chomsky is saying the opposite; that we should resist and thwart this will to dominate things in the world. It’s easy to forget he’s basically an anarcho-communist (and not in the pejorative context that label is often used, but as an intellectual school of thought). And before anyone calls it Marxism, ancom as a philosophical tradition derives from Kropotkin rather than Marx.

Leftist politics in general assume that most people are actually good, and society to the extent it exists is there to protect the majority of good people from the few baddies who want to hoard all the resources. Even if we take that will go power as an intrinsic feature of the world, those displaying antisocial behavior should be cast aside.

Not saying I’m 100% agreeing with this, but that optimism in the general goodness of people is a core tenet of leftist political views. And Chomsky is and has been a thought leader on the American left for the last 50 years.

> a philosophical tradition derives from Kropotkin rather than Marx.

Bakunin, another early anarchist, at a conference of the First Internationale in about 1870, said to Karl Marx something like "If you take the most convinced revolutionary, and give them absolute power, within a year they will be worse than the tsar himself." I think that has to qualify as one of the biggest "I told you so"s in history.

> But I do wonder to what extent his views are based on a possibly over-optimistic view of the world's potential

They definitely are. Chomsky should forever be respected for his work in linguistics, his work on the media and his research into US power. Manufacturing consent was published in 1988 and it is more relevant then ever.

His personal political views are however completely unrealistic and ignore human nature entirely.

Are you familiar with Rutger Bregman and his book Humankind? That gives a fresh perspective into humanity. One that I believe to be true. We're just too deep into the illusion of evilness, that's mandatory for status quo.

i think some very small contingent of often-extraordinarily rich and powerful -- and, therefore, comparatively-loud -- people either believe or claim to believe that humans are selfish/evil.

the fact that someone would have to write a book to countervail that claim shows the incredible power of those few people.

then again, we have folks like Steven Pinker, who - i don't know what his actual views on human nature are - but he definitely seems to be convinced that everything is getting better all the time - despite what seems to me to be at best a mixed record, and from here on out is going to be...challenging.

There are reasons why you believe this if you disproportionally own more than thousands combined. Even just for yourself you need some justification. What better than to declare humanity evil, constrained by its nature? Makes you sleep better at night and can justify anything you have done. It was just your nature.

Honest question: did you read Pinker’s book?

no.

Thanks for Pinker, I'll add it to my list. Would the primary book be: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined?

i actually don't know his primary book - but that one sounds reasonable enough - that was definitely one of his reasons why he said the world was getting better.

Nature from the cellular level up is comprised out of struggles between parties. There is always a war in every level of biology.

There is an undeniable percentage of egotistical maniacs, psychopaths and narcissists in the human population. This ensures conflict will always be a part of human societies.

> There is always a war in every level of biology.

You assert this with no proof, when asked if you have read a book which presents a case for a different viewpoint: that there is (also) cooperation and interdependence.

It is, to me, so obviously absurd to state that humans - who invented cities, fire brigades, line dancing, and symphony orchestras - are defined by struggle and warfare. It's just nonsense. "We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower." - Marcus Aurelius.

> There is an undeniable percentage of egotistical maniacs, psychopaths and narcissists in the human population.

True. But first of all, where do they come from? Are they born as such? And second of all, should they define our societies? There are many ways in which people, who are neither psychopaths nor narcissists, are forced to act in self-serving ways simply because there is no alternative in this culture. And there are many ways of dealing with them that do not involve building everything on mistrust.

> I would like to share his hopeful outlook (hopeful in the sense that he seems to think there ought to be a counterfactual world where everyone behaves decently towards each other and the planet)

You'd see the point if you think of 'Civilization' as a evolving process rather than an single point ideal.

The world today is factually more just and decent (IOW civilised) than the era of colonial imperialism and this change didn't just come about naturally. It happened because of people who question the injustice and challenged the world to be better. I think that's the role people like Noam Chomsky play. To expect the ideal so that we move towards it, however slowly.

A lot of things are changing during evolution. For example the genes that were beneficial to human in ancient time give high diabetes risk in modern society.

As to cooperation and competition, war is part of evolution that leads to the formation of modern human. But with invention of nuclear weapon the original rules that benefit to whole specie (but not individuals) are not applied any more. So Chomsky's view might just happened to match a modified better pattern then the politically incorrect but factually correct "fundamentally unjust universe" view that I partially agree with

Somethimes it isn't "modern society" and just the gallons of coke you can buy in super markets to the price of water. Well, on the other hand that isn't too different to classical evolutional processes that rely on chance.

Chomsky does not disagree with that take on the nature of the universe.

He disagrees it must be a feature of our social life.

Clearly we have the capacity to move beyond blunt conquest of each other literally. Why not socially?

To him it’s a matter of how we instigate each other to solve problems.

I can prove a lot of math itself with an R Pi. Is the industrial churn to sell new iPhones each year necessary to humanity or the Ferengi Alliance?

What would society look like if we forced austerity on capitalists and put all our smart people on equality of condition? My bet is it looks more like 1950s-60s economically.

What we do instead is focus on semantics of abstract rules of trade originating from the Bible (40 shekels and 12 goats for a daughter please), repackaged by aristocrats into economics models the normies were too ignorant to understand are just a description of what happens normally in math not English.

We don’t need to LARP a physics textbook.

Why make music or anything if the goal is to RP we’re just animals? Be an animal.

I think I agree with Chomsky that humans can create a much less hierarchical society. Most of what he advocates for (reducing American imperialism) is a pragmatic step towards giving people in the countries of the world more direct control over their lives. Would you say this is not possible? I don't think there's going to be a global revolution, but I do think we should strive to question hierarchy and increase human freedom wherever possible. I don't think we'll ever have a perfect society, but I do think we can create a much better society. Just look at all the progress made in the last decades.

Problem is that there are other countries that would use the vacuum left behind to further their ambitions. In a way colonization is still relevant in all developing countries.

An informed and empowered populace is a check against imperialism/colonization. Look at the opposition to the Vietnam war, for example. With the existence of the global internet, it has become much easier for citizens to track what their governments are doing. I think that we can decrease inter-country domination over time by pushing for more democracy and education worldwide.

I think you are onto something here. Most people grown in the better parts of the world really don't understand how much hard is life in the poorest corners, how much human rights + moral views are completely absent from the education and life experiences of some of the most powerful people in the world, just a few decades later after being that kid, that girl who grown in the living hells that are many parts of the worlds today.

These people are hardly different from Ghenghis Khan or have a different approach to conflicts if they have the upper hand with any advantage at their hand. So, many "western" "human" ways to engage and solve problems are for them, in fact, chances to get away with their objectives.

This is the world as it really is, not the world as we would like it to be.

That's the people you're gonna face with maybe a gun and few spare magazines, but the technology is nothing, they have the upper hand: no morals, no human rights to respect. They just have to win a game respecting no rules at all, those which you'd have to respect.

I don't buy this honestly. Even when nobody can live up to utopian expectations, to better yourself you might want to strive for more.

We heard about necessity of mass online surveillance and prisons outside of the rule of law. All because they are allegedly necessary. Of course they are not. But I guess there are Chinese and Russians preying on us and this is a geopolitical reality?

These are excuses, nothing more and fatalism because of humanities apparent weakness is not conductive to positive development nor very realistic.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210926093923/https://www.econo...

This trick no longer seems to work on The Economist. Any alternative?

Disabling JavaScript works for me. There's likely an extension for your web browser to do this easily.

In Firefox, open in reader mode. You'll get a truncated article the first time, but if you F5 while in reader mode you'll get the entire article.

If you really want to skip the paywall (I don't take any official position), you can use the Bypass Paywalls extension¹.

¹: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome

just add a dot :)

https://www.economist.com./by-invitation/2021/09/24/noam-cho...

https://outline.com/Em7MRE

A better link: http://archive.today/qYueR

I wonder how much of the authoritarian tendencies of the government of certain countries (e.g. Russia, China, Iran) is driven by a desire to maintain the stability and control presumably needed to resist hostile actions by the US empire that ironically professes freedom and democracy.

Authoritarian tendencies existed well before the US came to power. The best defence against the US 'empire' is to avoid authoritarian tendencies.

Tell that to Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran until some hostile action by the CIA.

Or, consider Saudi Arabia, which has a monarchy. They are on very friendly terms with the US.

I've just listed two examples out of many that can be easily found by anyone who is interested to know.

Please do, you have a single example of Iran and another that is the complete opposite of what I proposed. Then compare that to the powers US has had conflicts with during the 20/21st century, either directly or by proxy.

The point was also 'best defence', not 'option that completely negates any possible US threat'.

On odds, what country will most likely come into conflict with the US on probability, one of authoritarian rule or one of elected leaders?

Or accept our puppet dictators and our NGO "help."

Do you even have basic knowledge of communist history? Please read some.

All communist parties had party cleansing before they even gain power in their own countries. And the first thing they did after they gain power was newer round of party cleansing, killing millions. No, communist parties are not book clubs. In mao’s expression: 干革命不是请客吃饭。

This is a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

That's besides the point. Countries can change their systems; political regimes are not permanent and don't exist in a vacuum but respond to the environment. Who is to say that US actions did not give more domestic political legitimacy to the CPC so that democratic reform/revolution was down-regulated?

> I wonder how much of the authoritarian tendencies of the government of certain countries (e.g. Russia, China, Iran) is driven by a desire to maintain the stability and control presumably needed to resist hostile actions by the US empire that ironically professes freedom and democracy.

There is a really interesting passage in Ron Suskind's book 'One Percent Doctrine' about the 2004 release of Bin Laden video, released four days before the US presidential election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video). The intelligence consensus was that this was released to help re-elect Bush, as the Bush-led US gives legitimacy to Al Queda's actions as much as much as Al Queda's actions legitimize US war on terror.

edited: corrected the book reference.

That makes sense to me, and it's also the impression I got from watching this interview with Vladimir Putin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pJd6O_NT0

I don't think Putin is fully honest, but ignoring what he says doesn't seem like a good idea either, and I found the interview fairly enlightening.

I think an important clue here is that all the authoritarian regimes (Russia, Belarus, China, Iran, North Korea, etc.) seem much more likely to form alliances with one another even in the absence of an obvious shared national interest.

An interesting case study may be the recent secular coup attempt in Turkey. Secular values are closer to western values, and according to this editorial in Turkish state news, when given the chance to come out in favor of democracy and political stability (by opposing the coup) or western values (by not opposing it), Europe chose the latter

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/opinion-the-july-15-coup-h...

Basically I see the modern geopolitical divide as being countries focused on human rights and secular western values on the one hand (US and its allies) and countries focused on stability on the other hand (Russia/China and friends). Both positions have some merit in my view. For example, I think Putin makes a good point that the US screwed up in Libya--we were aiming to achieve human rights but we ended up just destabilizing the region. IMO there has to be a balance between both human rights and stability considerations.

Chomsky is fighting the last war when he talks about US actions in past decades in South America. Back then the global divide was capitalism vs communism. Now it's about human rights vs stability IMO.

Just finished reading 'Blind Man's Bluff' - about the American submarine espionage stories since WW2.

There are fascinating stories but it was also striking how so many of the stories were about how the US, the technically and economically superior country, spied on and harassed the Soviets near the Soviet territories.

I read somewhere that it's not entirely unlikely that the brand of socialism/communism in the Soviet Union became more extreme because of foreign attack. Socialism was considered, probably rightly so, a mortal threat to current political and social systems so the communist camp in Russia was under assault from day 1.

For those that forgot, Russia was an ally in WW1 and once it withdrew from the war due to huge war fatigue, Russia was invaded by Britain, the US, Japan, I'm probably forgetting a bunch of dozen other invaders. For what was basically a matter of internal policy and later a civil war.

Of course, nothing could have guaranteed that the extremists such as the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin, wouldn't have won even if left alone.

That's an interesting angle, thanks for sharing.

The book gives an impression that many American submariners were driven by mission whereas the Soviet ones took it as a job. A memorable quote from a Soviet commander (Bagdasaryan) who's submarine has collided with an American sub and was reprimanded, was how he would like to "have a drink and think together how to avoid similar collision in the future" with his American counterpart. Unfortunately, the American commander had passed away by this time.

Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union.

They was also an 'ally' in WW2, I think 'enemy of my enemy' would be a more apt term.

The Soviets were an authoritarian mass murdering regime (Stalin murdered 4-5 million on purpose in Ukraine, but that's just one small item on the list) that already ruthlessly ruled much of Central Asia, and the only reason the Czechs, E. Germans, Poles, Romanians, Hungarians etc. were in the 'Warsaw Pact' was due to forcible acquiescence at the point of a gun: those states were nation-sized prisons, forcibly monitored by Stasi or Stasi-like forces, who were in turn monitored by the KGB, in very draconian terms.

Meanwhile, NATO was made up of very willing participants.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, we can see where those states more or less landed in terms of alignment.

The Soviets were all over the world trying to take control of individual government groups, providing money, intelligence, weapons etc. in order to take direct control of government, and have them controlled in much the same manner they did Poland, Hungary etc.. and where they were successfull it was bad.

The American model exemplified by US support of House of Saud is excessively benign: don't attack the US or the world order, don't align with the Soviets or China, sell your goods to whoever you want but at free market prices, maintain stable governance ... and that's that. In Chile, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, problems 'came to ahead' due to very direct influence of the Soviets and we're still reeling from it to this day.

Not to overstate things entirely, but during the Wiemar Republic, Stalin had complete and direct control over the German Communist party, who had ~17% of the Bundestag, and they had their own 'thug forces' out there beating people up, killing police (on a couple of occasions). Needless to say, could you imagine some antagonizing foreign dictatorship directly controlling 17% of UK Parliament or US Congress? I wouldn't say that was a primary cause of anything, but at least pretty big driver of what followed.

> Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union.

We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the *birth* of the Soviet Union.

Imperial Russia, no matter what you may think of its morals, was an ally of the Western powers. It fought together with them, it was completely exhausted by the war, it collapsed. Immediately after its collapse, the Western powers, acting very much like hyenas (US, UK, France, Japan, etc), invaded their former ally.

The new Russian factions fought each other and fought off the invaders.

How do you look internal politics look in a country in such a situation? Do you think moderates have any chance? When your former allies are betraying you, your country was ravaged by war and is now in a civil war?

The hypothesis was that we will never know for sure if Russia wouldn't have gotten a more moderate socialist government without foreign invasion. It's an "what if" scenario.

Yes, Imperial Russia was definitely a different thing altogether.

But it's a stretch to say that those countries 'invaded' Russia. There was 'backing' of a side during a revolution, that's not the same thing.

The American revolution was supported by France and the American civil war had 'backing' by other parties.

I don't think the backing of outside powers is hugely relevant to that outcome, that said, the point in general (i.e. actual outside invaders) is reasonable.

I think it's different in every situation though.

I mean Afghanistan, Chile, Cuba, Libya ... all so different there's hardly a common thread other than '2 sides during the Cold War'.

Do recall that the Soviets for a good bit had a leg up on rocketry and were more or less neck-and-neck on thermonuclear weapons.

When your adversary has intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons aimed at your cities, you do whatever you can to avoid those being used, including whatever espionage you can get away with.

And when the Soviets found themselves in this exact situations, those rascals too had resorted to whatever espionage they could get away with! The nerve of them!

In the early 2010 I've read a news story about Czechs finding and declassifying some old military plans from the 1970-ies (desgined in the USSR and then supplied to the rest of Warsaw Pact) which went along the lines of "launch the strategical nuclear strike, then take over the Europe with conventional troops (with possible use of tactical nuclear waeponry)". The story went into some details into how the strike directions in those plans were actually radically different from what NATO at those times expected the Soviets to use, so it was a rather interesting read.

And then, in the very last paragraph of the story, it makes an off-hand remark that those plans had an explicit directive in them that they are to be enacted only in the wake of the nuclear attack on a member of the Warsaw Pact. Ah. So those were plans were less of "okay, let's figure out how to set the world ablaze and then rule whatever's left" kind and more of "in case of being nuked: a) nuke back; b) ...try to take over whatever's left, I guess?" kind. Obviously, putting that remark at the beginnig of the story where every reader would read it would lessen the story's intended impression of the scary murderous Reds.

The plans did indeed exist and Czechoslovak People's Army was expected to fight its way up to French Lyon until it would be utterly decimated by tactical nuclear weapons of the enemy.

> When your adversary has intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons aimed at your cities, you do whatever you can to avoid those being used, including whatever espionage you can get away with.

Not saying there's anything wrong with espionage - just saying that Americans seem to have an overly adversarial mentality with severe inability to distinguish the difference between real vs. perceived threats. At least from the interviewed submariners, the Soviets viewed their American counterparts as colleagues whereas the Americans viewed Soviets as enemy.

Replying to an American boasting about who was 'winning' during a Soviet-US summit, a commander said through a translator: "tell this young man that when veterans get together, it doesn't matter who won or lost - it's enough that both survived."

"Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum" - George Attali. American world involvement does have some aspects of imperialism. But are we to be so naive as to assume that America's withdrawal from control of resources wouldn't be quickly followed by their takeover by other, even less enlightened players?

Agreed. This book argues that periods of world history with an uncontested superpower (e.g. Britain or the US) are significantly more peaceful than those without:

https://www.amazon.com/War-What-Good-Conflict-Civilization/d...

The post-WWII era, which coincides with the era of American dominance, has been a fairly peaceful period by historical standards. It's hard to argue with results.

Wow, never thought I'd see a Chomsky essay on the Economist, of all magazines.

Chomsky wrote this article without self reflection that he told everyone to vote for the dude who repeatedly voted for regime change wars and served as the VP while they destroyed enough countries to bring slavery back to Libya.

the article on YNews three spots away is a detailed and lengthy exposition on outsourcing of American software work to various countries. There is no hint of any of these sentiments expressed by Chomsky. It is almost as if Chomsky is expressing a certain facet of conscience that is utterly lacking in the other side of that coin. And coin it is, that is the subject, money, work, and all that goes with it. weird

Can you be a bit more specific? This article? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28663221

Can you explain the two sides of the coin and the connection?

Now that the U.S. has left Afghanistan, thus reducing our "imperialism" according to Chomsky, are Afghans better off? No, they are worse off, especially women.

Americans are definitely better off though. What a huge drain of resources.

Afganistan was stable and free of war (mostly) when the US invaded. Even the poppy export had been repressed. Have the Afgans been made better of by another 20 years of constant war, would they have better of by fighting a continues war for then next 50 years?

The Taliban were winning, that is why the US was driven out. Because it was clear the US was leaving the Taliban were willing to wait.

The reality is the US would have to defend the country for many decades. Spend huge amount of money against the will of the waste majority of Americans on propping up a group of warlords who are often as bad the Taliban (and some of them were worse).

The Afgan government was the most corrupt in the world. The whole economy was a based on US military presence and aid, plus selling of poppy. A country far, far more depended on exporting poppy even then Colombia at the peak of the 'Narco State'.

The money going to the army subsidies officers, equipment stolen and sold, often to the Taliban. Local officials pocketing funds for local administration.

Most woman in Afghanistan still lived according tradition, and laws in most of the country continued to be sharia based. Some studies even found that courts in government areas were stricter.

How do you avoid the 'we are ruling them for their own good'. Should British have stayed in India? All imperialist claim their rule was 'civilizing' the country. Can Afghans never rule themselves? What about other nations who have those kinds of laws? Should the US occupy all of the Middle East and Central Asia in a Pro Womans right campaign? What about Indonesia? Should the US rule those 100s of millions as well?

Chomsky, again, finds what ever facts he can to fit his theories, and disregards everything else. He's a proponent of the sort of effete liberalism of the 80's and 90's, which says "well, if you're not perfect, then you're not allowed to say anything about other's actions"; a liberalism that's very comfortable, very twee, and quite content to do nothing, having shown how very very clever it is, and how very very little anything other than being clever matters.

Unfortunately, we do not live in Mr. Chomsky's world, where genocide can be waved aside as "internal repression" and immediately dismissed with a coy reference the US allowing misbehavior in Israel, as if it was a 51st state. Sadly, we cannot take a bare statement of the ridiculousness of US military power, and uncritically assume that there's no deep value the world gets from US hegemony, crumbling though it may be.

The whole article boils down to "The US has done things I think are bad, therefore it shouldn't do anything because it has no moral leg to stand on." That might work for wowing undergraduates; it does not make for good international policy.

Chomsky is a liberal? ever since when?

> that there's no deep value the world gets from US hegemony, crumbling though it may be.

Jesus effing christ, this guy actually supports US hegemony... Kissinger, is it you?

In the USA (re-)definition of the word, yes.

He refers to himself as an anarchist, first and foremost. He has what would be seen as very “liberal” as in “progressive” views in US political terms.

I’m not American, I felt the word liberal referred to an American democrat party, centre-left line of thinking more so than classic leftist views - is that wrong?

That’s how Americans use the term, yes. It’s original meaning (still in partial use by the rest of the world) is shorthand for “liberalism”, which is a well defined political and economic philosophy that is actually somewhat conservative and center-right leaning in modern American political terms.

Admittedly, I'm not someone who is very knowledgeable on the subject, but that is not what I got from the article at all. My read on it was that the US needs to be more diplomatic instead of forceful, and try to reach some sensible cooperation with China. That doesn't strike me as doing nothing? Also, as a non American, the "we're not special" narrative does resonate with me. American rhetoric is so often full of implicit superiority complex that does make the rest of us grind our teeth a bit. (The phrase that comes to mind immediately is public figures talking about "American lives" when what they should be saying is "human lives", another is calling for example, a black Englishman "African American" when he is neither African nor American). It's something that I suspect normal Americans are sometimes blind to, because it is so ingrained in the culture.

> My read on it was that the US needs to be more diplomatic instead of forceful, and try to reach some sensible cooperation with China.

Cooperation is useful when both actors are acting in good faith, and where both actors want something that is acceptable or tolerable to the other side.

What are the motivations and goals of the CCP? Are they tolerable to the US (and the rest of the world)? Should there be accommodation in letting them achieve those goals?

See for example:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...

Cooperation is also a two-way street: how cooperative has China/CCP been with COVID investigations?

Sure, I don't necessarily agree, but that's what I felt was his point in the article.

His main examples of things that will take cooperation were climate change and nuclear proliferation.

This is mostly name-calling, and you don't help your case by getting major facts wrong. Chomsky is no liberal, he has been the leading left critic of American liberals for over 50 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Power_and_the_New_Man...

As for the "80's and 90's" he's been writing this sort of article, IIRC, since 1940 or so, when he was 12.

I don't know what this has to do with Israel again, but there seems to be a pattern lately...

That said, I don't think Chomsky held back on that department. Not even slightly, on the contrary he is pretty outspoken about it. But contrary to what we hear from others, it is often reasonable.

It is a start to motivate people to hold their representatives accountable. Development and improvement can only happen here.

The thing about America is that if you don't like it, you can move to the US and promote political ideas to change what you don't like.

It doesn't always succeed, but it's non-violent and it works.

It's why so many people move to America.

Through the visa lottery system?

Of course not, through the southern border illegaly!

And vote the populists who will give you free citizenship and scholarships!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com