Saturday, July 21, 2007

Anti-Imperialism is Chomskyite Bull Shite

Chomsky is an idiot. I go out my way to avoid reading anything of his. However sometimes he is referred to in places of good standing where I'd least expect. Snarksmithy critiqued an essay Chomsky wrote, doing the good service of breaking it down into mostly manageable bites. But the stench lingers.

Chomsky is anti-imperialistic, he portrays imperialism as the ultimate in brutality. He figures a spectrum of actions from the export of ideas and systems right through to the invasion and imposition of a system of government as imperialism - in this he is close enough to being right. He considers it neccessary to brutally suppress the indigenous culture to afford the expansion of the imperialistic culture. He is wrong. Brutal repression is not needed to carry out imperialism.

One theory why he reasons thus is because he is a wet behind the ears, dip shit Stalinist (he certainly has supported enough Stalinist causes). Perhaps he studied the requirements of implementing his beloved Stalinism and found it did require brutal repression. Then made a leap of faith, without evidential backing, to assume that capitalism & democracy required the same brutal repression of competing ideas.

On Iraq his reasoning works as follows. Imperalism is occuring - imperialism is brutal - but it is not working well - either not brutal enough or Iraqis are bravely resisting in an unexpected manner - propose must be more brutal or leave. He reasons that the occupation of Iraq is a failure because the Iraqis are bravely resisting the brutal occupation of the American/British forces.

He references the occupations of Europe by the Nazis and Soviets as being successful alluding as he does so to the iron fist of repression inherent in those occupations. He then mentions the failure in Iraq, leaving it to the reader to both see his implicit criticism of American aggression (brutal occupying imperialists) and American weakness (you wouldn't see Uncle Joe letting all those people out of Fallujah).

What he neglects to note in his short history of successful occupations is the occupation/liberation of Western Europe, S. korea and Japan post WWII. This was achieved at the same time as the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviets and was carried out without the brutal repression Chomsky would have us believe is neccessary. It was more successful than Soviet occupation, because it is ongoing.

Brutal repression is not always neccessary to facilitate imperialism. Sometimes the recipients of your imperialism like what you are providing.

The crucial difference between the successful Allied, Soviet and Nazi occupations of WWII and the ongoing Fook Up that is Iraq, is that the WWII occupiers made sure they secured the area. The Soviets and the Western Allies no more liked each other than the Islamofacists like the USA/UK and after WWII each knew the other side would try and screw with their occupations. So they lined up big fooking armies and told each other you cross this line and we go to war.

The borders* have not been secured in Iraq. Syria, Iran & Saudi are screwing with the occupation and no-one in Washington or London is doing anything to stop it. Brutality is irrelevent.

* apparently it is an American thing, borders mean less over there.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home