Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 31, 2014, 10:38:14 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
22811 Posts in 8363 Topics by 1384 Members Latest Member: - Duke Most online today: 77 (July 03, 2005, 11:25:30 PM)
+  Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum
|-+  GENERAL
| |-+  Essays and Reasonings (Moderators: Tyehimba, leslie)
| | |-+  The Responsibility of Intellectuals
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Responsibility of Intellectuals  (Read 1820 times)
News
Admin
*****
Posts: 812


« on: July 23, 2011, 11:57:36 PM »

By Stephen Gowans
July 23, 2011


An article by reporter Rory Carroll in last Sunday’s Observer titled “Noam Chomsky criticises old friend Hugo Chavez for ‘assault’ on democracy” has set off a storm of controversy among Chomsky and Chavez supporters.

Some, angry at the leftist intellectual for criticizing the Venezuelan president, demanded an explanation. Chomsky replied that Carroll’s article was “dishonest” and “deceptive.”

But a transcript of the interview—which Chomsky told one blogger did not exist—suggests it is Chomsky, not Carroll, who is dishonest and deceptive.

“Let’s begin with the headline: complete deception,” Chomsky replies to one blogger.

Really?

Here’s what Chomsky told the Observer reporter.

Carroll: Finally, professor, the concerns about the concentration of executive power in Venezuela: to what extent might that be undermining democracy in Venezuela?

Chomsky: Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary, and for specific circumstances, let’s say fighting world war two, it’s an assault on democracy (my emphasis).

Carroll: And so in the case of Venezuela is that what’s happening or at risk of happening?

Chomsky: As I said you can debate whether circumstances require it—both internal circumstances and the external threat of attack and so on, so that’s a legitimate debate—but my own judgment in that debate is that it does not.

Earlier in the interview Chomsky told Carroll that, “Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo and it has to be guarded against. Whether it’s over too far in that direction in Venezuela I’m not sure but I think perhaps it is” (my emphasis).

So, Chomsky tells Carroll that concentration of executive power is an assault on democracy, that there’s a tendency toward concentration in Venezuela, and that in his judgment the circumstances don’t require it.

So how is it that the headline “Noam Chomsky criticises old friend Hugo Chavez for ‘assault’ on democracy” is deceptive and dishonest? Granted, Chavez might not be an old friend, at least not in the literal sense, but the Observer headline hardly seems to misrepresent Chomsky’s words.

Now, we can go around in circles about whether Carroll fairly or dishonestly recounted his conversation with Chomsky (though it looks like the dishonesty here isn’t Carroll’s), but anyone who insists that Chomsky didn’t criticize Chavez is going to have to do a fair amount of straw clutching. Yes, the leftist intellectual did criticize Washington in his interview with Carroll, and he did point out all the good that has happened in Venezuela (which Carroll acknowledges in his article.) But so what? That doesn’t negate Chomsky’s open criticism of Chavez — which is what a number of Chavez partisans are agitated about.

The occasion for the interview was Chomsky’s open letter criticizing the detention of Judge Maria Lourdes Affiuni. Affiuni had freed banker Eligio Cedeno in 2009. Cedeno, who had faced corruption charges, immediately fled the country. Chavez denounced the judge as a criminal and demanded that she be jailed for 30 years.

We can debate whether Chavez’s treatment of Affiuni is heavy-handed, but it doesn’t take a high-profile intellectual of Chomsky’s caliber to figure out that the establishment press will use all the ammunition it can lay its hands on to vilify Chavez, and the best ammunition of all is that which comes from the Left. It’s one thing for a US state official to raise concerns about Chavez. You expect it. It’s quite another for a leftist intellectual to do the same.

It might be said that Chomsky didn’t know the Observer would use his criticism to blacken Chavez’s reputation, but that would be dishonest and deceptive.  It’s hard to swallow the canard that poor old Noam–whose understanding of the media is second to none–blindly stumbled into an ambush. “I should know by now that I should insist on a transcript with the Guardian, unless it’s a writer I know and trust,” Chomsky lamented.

Yeah, right.

Media Lens, springing to Chomsky’s defense, noted perspicaciously that ‘the Guardian (the Observer’s sister newspaper) is normally happy to ignore (Chomsky) and his views. But when Chomsky expresses criticism of an official enemy of the West, he suddenly does exist and matter for the Guardian.”

But hadn’t the co-author of Manufacturing Consent figured this out long ago?

I think it would be fair to suppose he has. That he went ahead anyway, and allowed the press to add his criticisms of Chavez to what he himself calls the “vicious, unremitting attack by the United States and the west generally” on Venezuela, could mean one of two things.

Either Chomsky is a press-hound.

Or he’s not as much of a friend of Chavez as Carroll–and a good number of leftists-think.

Or both.

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/the-responsibility-of-intellectuals/
Logged
gman
Full Member
***
Posts: 417

AfricaSpeaks


« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2011, 02:33:57 PM »

I haven't read either the article or Chomsky's comment about it, so maybe shouldn't comment, but I totally disagree with Gowans' general logic. Basically he seems to be saying that people should never, ever criticize "the enemies of our enemies" for fear that our enemies will use that as ammunition against them. So, for example, if we were living in the ww2 era, we shouldn't criticize Stalin, because he is the enemy of Hitler, and Hitler is also our enemy. (Not saying that Chavez is in any way equivalent to Stalin - I think he is an authoritarian demagogue for sure, but nowhere near as bad as Stalin and with many more redeeming qualities). Or if we were in Guyana in the 1980s, we shouldn't criticize Burnham for his human rights abuses, because he nationlised foreign companies and was fond of anti-imperialist rhetoric. (Maybe a bit closer match for Chavez, although I think Chavez did more for poor Venezuelans than Burnham did for poor Guyanese). I don't buy that logic.
Chomsky has been vilified by doctrinaire "anarchists" in Venezuela for not being too pro-Chavez, and now he is being vilified by doctrinaire authoritarian "communists" for not being pro-Chavez enough - sounds like he's probably in more or less the right place if you ask me. "there are three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth"- Babatunde Olatunji
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!