Chomsky is only pro anarchism when it comes to the West. He is perfectly fine with communist/post communist regimes rampaging around unabated and uncriticized.
I would call his stance as "West bad, West always bad and at fault for everything!!1".
I would call his stance as "West bad, West always bad and at fault for everything!!1".
He talks about the West because as a citizen of a country in the West, he has more culpability and responsibility for it's actions.
As well the United States is the largest military and power, and in all cases, the largest Authority is always the one with the most crimes. It's as true for the US, as well as all of history.
However, I also waded into the Khmer Rouge business and his words are uncomfortably close to justifying Pol Pot. Complex as that situation was there's really not any excuse for what the Khmer Rouge did.
You can also read his actual words on Ukraine/Russia (easy to find) and see the same tendency there.
At the same time, his analysis on the US and ME wars is more accurate, IMHO.
This seems to be a pit some otherwise excellent minds fall into: one side bad implies opposing sides are somehow good.
"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth." - Noam Chomsky
I'm not going to repeat the exercise but at the time it was a teaching moment for me, that anybody can get things wrong. I would not be surprised that he walked back his initial strongly held stance, good for him.
The Ukraine/Russia stuff though is just ridiculous, but he's old. I know (former) world class scientists who are old, and also sadly ridiculous. Terrifying when you yourself are getting old.
The Ukraine and Russia discussion is as boring, and consistent as Chomsky has always been.
In 1979 the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and took over much of the country with the help of Vietnamese aligned communists.
The US then began arming the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists not aligned with Vietnam. It also fought for their seat at the UN.
So the US began arming and supporting Pol Pot in 1979, as did China. This was covered to one extent or another in the New York Times, Nightline etc.
Don't really get people tut tutting Chomsky being a Vietnam and Cambodia dove when the US was arming Pol Pot starting in 1979.
There is no concrete evidence the US armed the Khmer Rouge.
At best, there is some evidence that some of the non-lethal aid provided to rival groups might have made it to the Khmer Rouge, but that's a far cry from arming them.
When the US begins arming the coalition of Sihanouk and the communists in 1979, then all the arms are going to "rival groups" in the Sihanouk/communist coalition. It's ridiculous.
Any how, the US fairly openly armed what you call the Khmer Rouge, I guess a sliver of plausible deniability is enough for the minority of people like you who want to deny it. Nightline even did a whole segment on it.
The KPNLF were essentially strong armed into a coalition government by the Thai - who threatened to cut them off from aid and boot them from the country - and to gain international recognition and aid. They waited until the last possible moment to join and remained hostile towards the Khmer Rouge.
If you have a link to this Nightline episode, I'd love to see it. I couldn't find it.
This allegation floats up from time to time, but lacks veracity.
Of course Kissinger would have loved for the US to have done so -- but that doesn't mean it actually happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_s...
I urge people to read the link which you yourself posted - people can learn about the US arming the so-called "Khmer Rouge".
That's why it has the word "Allegations" in the title.
My bad - Angka Loeu it seems you'd prefer we say.
Mind sharing what those words were or even your interpretation of them?
Fwiw, I don't think any human being is right 100% of the time either. Doesn't mean we can't learn from anyone, warts and all
His position on Vietnam War vs. war in Ukraine provides a nice illustration. In the former he was demanding an unconditional pull of US forces from Vietnam, in the latter he was asking Ukraine to capitulate to invader's demands. The only consistency in his opinions is the "West bad".
If the US invaded Mexico, he would presumably consider the US invasion a war crime but might still consider Mexico making concessions their best course of action. It wouldn't be that he supported the US's war, continuing to fight is not always the best option for the people.
Why? What makes peace negotiations in Vietnam (1968-1973) different from peace negotiations in Ukraine, and how is it relevant?
> If the US invaded Mexico, he would presumably consider the US invasion a war crime but might still consider Mexico making concessions their best course of action.
Well, he didn't call for negotiations or any concessions or from the Vietnam side, instead explicitly called for unilateral pull-out of US forces.
People who let themselves/are forced by rest of the world (Yalta) be conquered by soviets end up murdered by the xxx thousands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre, raped en masse, send to Siberia, and their land plundered down to bricks and pipes. We have seen that 100 years ago, 80 years ago, and we see this today with russian soldiers stealing toilets from conquered Ukraine.
Bucha https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/russian-soldiers-... is what happens when russians enter your land.
If only Ukrainians realized they lack any agency and are being manipulated by US, surrendered already and died like in Bucha everything would be right with the world once again!
Its always someone living in a safe corner of the world (Chomsky, the Pope) advocating for appeasement and giving up your rights to the aggressor.