Re: community institutions, was interesting little tidbit ...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/03 6:20:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>hmmm - I have never understood a 'forum' to be 'private'.

> >

> >It is if the public don't have access to it.

>

> I'm curious - is it just a forum that anyone can sign up for...I wouldn't

> view that as private, unless it is part of the user agreement that stuff not

> be repeated.

Anyone can sign up for it, if they donate to ZNet, so it costs money. Also,

the owner considers it private and reserves the right to kick people out. For

example, a libertarian once got kicked out for expressing his political

views. The reason he was there was because he agreed with their writings on US

foreign policy.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 12/13/03 12:00:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>> I haven't read the earlier part of the thread, but wouldn't making

>> decisions

>> by 'what benefits people in a given case' be working under an overarching

>> principle?

>

> Gene,

>

> That's actually my opinion too, and I made this criticism to no avail way

> back in the day in psych 101.

Nice attempt at a little dig, but I see no reason to take your failure to

convince your professor (a grad student?) as any kind of validation of your

point.

> I think it depends which way you look at it.

> In

> one sense, you can make a valid differentiation. For example, the overarching

> principle person might say that theft is wrong, period, so one who committs it

> should have consequence x follow it. The case-by-case person might say theft

> is wrong, but in some scenarios the person may have been on the verge of

> starvation, and were justified in stealing the bread from the store, because

> the

> store had extra, and it would be worse for someone to die than someone to

> committ theft.

But this has nothing at all to do with 'overarching principles'. In the

latter case, the person you label as a 'case by case' person simply has a

more nuanced and humane overarching principle guiding his analysis. In BOTH

cases, the person uses the overarching principle to help analyze the

situation. I see NO relevant difference.

>

> But on the other hand, as you point out, you could say the latter person

> subscribed to the overarching principle that suffering should always be

> minimized.

And that is indeed the correct answer. Of course, it 'depends which way you

look at it'. One can neglect the obvious, which is that both people are

using their ideals to analyze your hypothetical case. There is a distinction

between the two people, however, this distinction is NOT 'overarching

principle vs case by case'. Even the anti-theft person analyzes by a

case-by-case methodology - in each case he must analyze whether theft has

actually occurred. The other person analyzes whether a violation of his rule

(more complex) has occurred.

>

>>>>> Also,

>>>>> many people don't have political opinions. I have some, but they aren't

>>>>> strong, and they fluctuate quite often.

>>>>

>>>> Yeah, right.

>>>

>>> Out of curiosity, are you a psychotherapist? If not, perhaps you should

>>> consider it, since you seem to know my thoughts considerably better than I

>> do.

>>

>>

>> That's an interesting interpretation, and suggests not that I should be a

>> psychotherapist, but that you should hire one.

>

> I seem to be managing fine without one, and I really can't afford one right

> now. I was simply suggesting that common decency would suggest one take

> other's statments of their own thoughts at face value, rather than

> second-guessing

> them.

Well, I was joking. However if one's assessment of one's own thoughts

contradicts one's actions, then further analysis is called for. You

repeatedly claim this and that (I never was dismissive of Chomsky, you and I

agree, etc), but your actual statements contradict this claim. Imagine, for

example, if someone hits you and you get angry at them for hitting you, then

they respond that they never hit you....you would certainly challenge their

assessment of their behavior. An extreme example, but logically the same.

>

>> But, of course, you did mean to single him out. You did mean to say that

>> Chomsky is an ideologue (i.e. in this context allows his political ideals to

>> influence his conclusions excessively), and you emphasized that by using the

>> word 'ridiculously'. You essentially impugned his intellectual integrity,

>> but you don't have the guts to just say it.

>

> I don't remember whether it was in response to you or Wanita, but I did

> clarify in past posts in this thread that the term " ridiculously, " perhaps a

> bad

> choice, was meant as measure of magnitude, not a value judgment.

But OF COURSE this is a value judgement in the context in which it

was made, which was the credibility of Chomsky's writings on political

subjects! Your argument, essentially, was that Chomsky's writings have less

VALUE, because his examples, his reasoning, and his conclusions are skewed

by his ridiculously strong ideology! I just don't see how you can spout this

stuff, then say you weren't dismissing him and that you weren't making value

judgements, then say that people should take your assessments at face value!

(I need some coffee - be back in a few...)

> I realize

> that

> that is not the literal meaning of the word, which is I think " worthy of

> ridicule, " but I think it's actually a common colloquialism to use

> " ridiculously "

> as a measure of magnitude.

And that is how I took it. You used it in the context that someone who was

politically ideological had less credibility than one who wasn't, and that

someone who was ridiculously ideological had even less.

>

>

> How can someone spend much of their life researching in fields

>> like politics and history and not be passionate enough about it to hold

>> strong opinions?

>

> Because not everyone comes to the conclusion that foreign policy issues are

> primarily systemic.

????? So, only people who conclude that the problems are systemic are

susceptible (sp?) to idealism?

> Actually, most foreign policy theories divide up the

> executors of foreign policy into several camps, which leads them to primarily

> analyze foreign policy as the result of the people executing it, rather than

> the

> systemics. Chomsky is in a minority here (which doesn't make him wrong.) Its

> an inherent pitfall in systemic analysis that one naturally tends to gloss

> over

> nuances, because one deemphasizes the difference between different

> policy-makers, while a non-systemic analysis naturally over-emphasizes the

> differences

> between different policy-makers, and naturally de-emphasizes their

> commonalities.

That is such a crock of shit. There are pitfalls in any type of analysis,

however, it seems to me that Chomsky differentiates quite well between

different policy makers. You need to show that he doesn't, rather than just

say that it is " inherent " in his style of analysis! If there is truth in the

fact that much of the problem is systemic then an objective and serious

researcher will OF COURSE analyze, at least some of the time, systemically.

>

> Whether one pitfall is more or less severe than another really depends on

> what you view as the primary purpose of the analysis, in my opinion. If you

> want

> readers to become part of a movement to change the system, clearly it is

> counter-productive to engage in non-systemic analysis. If the systemic

> analysis

> is correct, this is a perfectly valid motive, because it yields the conclusion

> that the system *should* be changed for the sake of morality.

? Well, then obviously one could critique Chomsky by showing successfully

that his systemic analysis is incorrect. But I don't see see you doing that.

I see you simply declaring (as if reciting the words of some old professor)

that this is a danger inherent in systemic analysis.

>

> But if one's purpose is to simply gain a thorough descriptive understanding

> of a particular event, the systemic analysis is probably less useful, because

> it deemphasizes nuances unique to that event.

ok - what you are perhaps saying is that if one's main purpose is more

towards entertainment, the kind you might find on some TV special,

emphasizing the personalities that 'made it all happen', then sure -

Chomsky's analysis is deficient. He does address this issue of the type of

analysis, and he believes that an understanding of what is really going on

is much more successful if one looks at it systemically...and I think that

his assessment rings more true to me in explaining various tools of the

establishment, whether in the media, academia, or in the government, than by

talking about their individual personalities. The systemic analysis isn't

more successful simply because it may lead to more successful activism, it

is more successful because it has greater explanatory value of the way

things work.

>

> The discussion Wanita and I were having didn't deal with the US in any way

> whatsoever. It dealt with how useful the Sandinista experience is in

> informing

> how we can change our institutions at the community level. She cited Chomsky

> as a sole source. I suggest that Chomsky's work in describing the Sandanista

> experience is considerably deficient in regards to our purpose.

Of course, by 'deficient', you are being complimentary of Chomsky.

> In large

> part, this is because Chomsky's purpose is systemic analysis of US foreign

> policy,

> not the particulars of the Sandanista regime.

>

You really sound like you are reciting old sound bites from stuff you were

taught, or read from someone critiquing Chomsky. I need more.

>>> But when

>>> someone is openly political in purpose, clearly they are likely to

>> introduce

>>> biases to another degree than someone doing so unconsciously. Why is this

>> so

>>> complicated?

>>

>> LOL! When have I suggested that it is complicated? My objections to your

>> reasoning are not so complicated either!

>

> You're right. Actually, both lack complication to the point that we aren't

> moving beyond a yes-it-is no-it-isn't argument in this particular issue, and I

> think we have to agree to disagree. I personally think political activists

> deserve an extra dose of skepticism; you don't. That's pretty subjective.

Well, I am trying to point out the fallacies in your arguments, and, no, I

don't believe that this is all subjective.

> What

> we both agree on is that all sources deserve some dose of skepticism, and

> it's generally counterproductive to read one source alone, especially on

> politically loaded topics. I think we agree more than we disagree here, and

> it's

> fruitless to continue arguing the point.

>

That is true. However, we both keep on answering the other in a way that

incites us to respond.

>> How can you possibly claim this. I never suggested that by using a more

>> expansive list of sources he 'ensured' his objectivity, but, all things

>> being equal, whose objectivity would you trust more on the subject ABOUT the

>> U.S. role in the world, and the way that it is reported by official sources

>> in America - one who restricted himself to those sources, or one who

>> researched a wider range of international sources? Sure - it is only one

>> variable, but in the context of Chomsky's subject matter it is ESPECIALLY

>> relevant to considerations of his objectivity compared to U.S. government

>> apologists.

>

> For the record, I think that Chomsky is considerably more objective than any

> other New Left author I've read. I think he's taken a lot of flack on the

> Left for his objectivity, especially from anarchists in the anarchist mags.

ah - so leftists are less objective than moderates or conservatives? LOL!

>

> I'm not interested in comparing Chomsky's objectivity to other authors in

> regards to US foreign policy because I don't really have the time or the

> familiarity with enough sources to assess the " typical " level of objectivity.

> Some

> authors tend to take the US's " side " in general, and that is certainly a

> compromise in objectivity when they're rooting for the home team. But there

> are a

> lot of authors who approach their analysis as if each policy maker is an

> individual with different ideas, and I think their analyses tend to reveal

> nuances

> better than those with systemic analysis.

And it's precisely the strength of Chomsky that he understands the

similarities. The question really becomes which has more explanatory value.

I do believe that your way has more entertainment value.

> I think one could make a case that

> Chomsky is less " objective " in that he disregards these nuances in favor of

> commonalities between policy-makers in order to demonstrate systemics.

You can make a case for practically anything. However, I don't see you as

having done so. I don't think Chomsky, or anyone, could possibly deny that

personalities play a role in world events. But, of course, there is strong

motivation for government apologists to dismiss systemic analyses, so I

don't quite see these " subtle " little personality tales as objective either.

It can make a fine movie though, if you're a bit drunk. Costner,

maybe.

>

> But in a way " objective " here is really a relative term that is tied into the

> perceived purpose of the writing. For example, Chomsky never intended, to my

> knowledge, to give a comprehensive history of the Sandanista revolution in

> Nicaragua.

Well, of course...

> So he naturally emphasizes the facts that are relevant to his

> systemic analysis of US foreign policy.

ok ... everyone emphasizes what is relevant, do they not? If not, we tend to

say that they are 'rambling'.

> If you view the purpose of his

> writing as

> US foreign policy analysis, there isn't really a compromise in objectivity.

well, there isn't one inherent in that choice...

> If

> you view the purpose of his writing as Nicaraguan history, there are

> significant compromises for the sake of supporting his ideas.

Well, i'm not quite sure what you're saying exactly. One doesn't read

Chomsky to get a history of the Sandanistas. that certainly doesn't mean, or

imply, that anything that he says is incorrect. If what he says is

incorrect, it is not inherent in the fact that he is doing (primarily) a

systemic analysis of U.S. foreign policy.

> So perhaps it

> would be

> proper to say that Chomsky is objective, but that his own objective differs

> from the one that is useful to our discussion, and therefore for our purposes

> it

> isn't " objective. "

But that simply isn't correct use of the language. His analysis may not

address a particular issue, either in depth, or at all...but that says

nothing about his objectivity. And if he is wrong on an issue then he is

responsible for it, regardless of his method of analysis.

>

>> But it's not as if the emphasis is not extremely important. It is clear in

>> his writings, and in the speeches that I have heard. You stated initially

>> (sorry if I don't have the energy to dig up the quote amongst all our

>> verbiage) that Chomsky believed that we should hold the U.S. to a different

>> standard. He doesn't. He believes that the activism of U.S. citizens should

>> be focused on the behavior of the U.S. because that is what we are most

>> responsible for.

>

> Did I say that? If I did, I see why you think I'm an idiot, and that was

> essentially a typo. I don't mean that, and I will check to see my wording in

> a

> moment. What I meant is that he believes the US should be judged against a

> solid standard of morality, not against other countries.

>

Well, that doesn't seem like what you said initially, but I would still

differ. He spends much time comparing U.S. behavior against the behavior of

countries that we call enemies, as well as comparing the behavior of those

we call friends with those we call enemies. Of course, the backdrop is a

standard of ethical behavior, but he emphasizes that one mistake that people

make in analysis is that they regard countries as 'ethical agents'.

> You can find Chomsky exposing hypocricy by comparing US to other countries,

> but I don't believe this is his take-away point.

It is a central theme of his writing. I don't think that he has one

" take-away " point, unless it is how propaganda works systemically.

> You can also find Chomsky

> resisting comparisons to other countries. For example, comparisons to the

> Soviet

> Union, where Chomsky would say that the brutality of USSR is irrelevant to

> how we should conduct our policy.

??? I don't understand your point. To say that a particular case is

irrelevant doesn't mean that it compares when relevant...

>

> What I'm trying to say is that I believe if Chomsky wanted there to be a

> fundamental take-home point of his work, it wouldn't be that the US should be

> judged by the same standard as we judge other countries (though that is a

> point he

> makes a lot, in terms of opposing a unique standard), but that US citizens

> should influence US policy based on what is moral versus what is immoral,

> regardless of what any other country does. Does that clear anything up?

Well, sure - he says that - and it is rather silly to say that it is or

isn't his " take-away " point because it is certainly a motivation for his own

activism, but it is certainly not the point he emphasizes the most in his

ANALYSIS. He uses this rationality for activism to explain why he seems to

single out U.S. behavior, when other countries act so badly. So, it is

definitely not the central theme in his analysis.

What you say doesn't clear anything up because it again shows that you

misread Chomsky.

>

>> Well - you have convinced yourself apparently that you were not dismissive

>> of Chomsky. I suggest you objectively look back on what you have said, and

>> evaluate whether it was dismissive.

>

> If I say one thing, and then clarify it, I may have spoken poorly the first

> time. Some of the posts in this thread I wrote way past my bed time, and I'm

> sort of tired of the dicussion, so I haven't been speaking my clearest. And

> sometimes I just don't communicate what I'm saying well.

>

Well, I can only react to what you say. And it seems like your assessments

of what you've said often disagree with what you've said. And then, just

when I think you're coming around, you regress...I'd get a lot less annoyed

if you didn't write this stuff with such self assuredness.

> But in any case, if you were interested in just having a discussion rather

> than competing with me, wouldn't you regard these clarifications as the

> natural

> process of trying to move toward an agreement, rather than twisting my own

> words to " win " the argument?

>

I'm not interested in coming to an agreement! And I don't think I've been

twisting your words. I'm simply interested in finding the truth. There's no

point in you and I hugging in agreement if we fundamentally disagree, and I

think that we do.

>> Well, I don't have strong recollections of the particulars of what Chomsky

>> has said about the Sandanistas, but what I do recall is that he was both

>> complimentary of them (in the context of U.S. allies) but highly critical of

>> them (in the context of ideal behavior). i.e. rather objective, in my view.

>>

>

> My very first post on this subject was to point out that Chomsky has been

> critical of the Sandanistas. Since Wanita recommended their model as ideal

> community institutions, I suspect that the particular source she read on the

> subject did not have this balance.

>

Well, maybe I'll go back and read this thread from the beginning. One reason

I didn't was that there were so many posts in it...but from my recollection

of how Chomsky wrote about the Sandanistas, he would NEVER recommend their

model as 'ideal'. Perhaps better than many others, however.

>> hmmm - I have never understood a 'forum' to be 'private'.

>

> It is if the public don't have access to it.

I'm curious - is it just a forum that anyone can sign up for...I wouldn't

view that as private, unless it is part of the user agreement that stuff not

be repeated.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/03 1:13:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> " No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war. "

Did you get that from Zinn's book?

Chris

[Guest guest]

I would say from your description that it would be perfectly fine to copy a

posting from there.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:22:55 EST

Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting

little tidbit ...

In a message dated 12/13/03 6:20:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>hmmm - I have never understood a 'forum' to be 'private'.

> >

> >It is if the public don't have access to it.

>

> I'm curious - is it just a forum that anyone can sign up for...I wouldn't

> view that as private, unless it is part of the user agreement that stuff not

> be repeated.

Anyone can sign up for it, if they donate to ZNet, so it costs money. Also,

the owner considers it private and reserves the right to kick people out.

For

example, a libertarian once got kicked out for expressing his political

views. The reason he was there was because he agreed with their writings on

US

foreign policy.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:21:26 EST

Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting

little tidbit ...

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we

are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

" No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war. " -

Theodore Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

I confess!

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:39:53 EST

Subject: Re: community institutions, was interesting

little tidbit ...

In a message dated 12/14/03 1:13:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> " No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war. "

Did you get that from Zinn's book?

Chris