Just incase there was any confusion. It is important to point out how the anti-Chomsky sites take things out of context or simply lie and allow homophobic, ultra jingoist, bible basing, rape fantasizing, genocide defending, racist loons a great chance at derailing threads and not engaging in debate. It should be said that these types of people don't exist in real life and the internet is just a way for them to engage in their little wild fantasies. Either that or they're 16,17 or 18 years old. If the latter, perfectly understandable. We were all immature idiots at one point in our lives.
Because, as usual, there is no link to this - because he doesn't know where it is from either, he juts copy and pastes - I cannot get the correct context it is in. But if you read most of Chomsky's stuff about international affairs, most of the stuff he writes on East Timor, Bosnia, etc is all the same stuff. One could make a valid argument that Chomsky brings out too many books with the same stuff in them. A very reasonable argument.
“But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable... a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry...”
The exact opposite is true. Even the lowliest of land owning peasants resisted and continued to resist forced collectivization. The Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were both unmitigated disasters, leaving millions upon millions dead. Here, once again:
But lets took a look at what Chomsky has actually said about China. In the book Rouge States, Chomsky is arguing against the Black Book of Communism. Chomsky starts off chapter 12, page 174, paragraph 1, sentence 1 with: "Year 2000 opened with familiar refrains, amplified by the numerology: a chorus of self adulation, somber ruminations about the incomprehensible evil of our enemies, and the usual recourse to selective amnesia to smooth the way. He goes on to say lets confront the evil monsters that have been slain and look at the evils of communism. Important point to note is that this book up until this chapter has talked about crimes carried out by the west, mainly America and Britain and Chomsky is not saying "see, China wasn't so bad, after all." He is putting this stuff in context and arguing against the "why are we so good" west fairy tales.
On page 174, chapter 12, paragraph 3, sentence 1, Chomsky sardonically tumps political philosopher Alan Ryan for his notion that the Black Book has broken "the silence of the people who are simply baffled by the spectacle of so much absolutely futile and pointless, and inexplicable suffering." Chomsky goes on to say that he has been reading about the horrors of communism "since, childhood, notably in the literature of the left for the past 80 years, not to speak of the steady flow in newspapers and journals, film, libraries overflowing with books that range from fiction to scholarship - all unable to life the veil of silence." Also, the man who has fantasies about me being raped posted up Chomsky as someone who is a reason to distrust the "loony left" of Ireland. Another, rather silly point. The Irish non-republican left are all followers of Trotsky and have admiration for Lenin. Chomsky has condemned the first ostensible communist state ever, in Russia, calling what Lenin and Chomsky did a coup and saying that Lenin and Trotsky had deviated from what the true socialists were writing about at the time and before. Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union - YouTube So, Chomsky has little to do with the Irish "loony left" and their dole head, crusty followers. Regarding eírígí, I do not know Chomsky's views on Connolly, the party's main inspiration.
Now, on page 175, paragraph 4, Ryan talks about how communism has killed millions and has destroyed the "observation that you can't make an omelet without broken eggs."
Then, in the next paragraph, the mass murder supporting, Chomsky mentions about the self admitted goodness of the west compared to communism and the paragraph after that has similar stuff.
Then we move on to the Chinese Famine. Where the Bolshevik Chomsky( his name rhymes with Trotsky, therefore he must be a Bolshevik) supposedly says that the killing of 30 million people was all great and good for the Chinese. Page 176, under the heading Criminal Indictment and Self-Adulation, Chomsky goes through Ryan's "Exhibit A of the criminal indictment the Chinese famines of 1958-61, with a death toll of 25-40 million, he reports a sizable chunk of the 100 million corpses the 'recording angels' attribute to 'communism'(whatever that is, but let us use the conventional term). Chomsky then cites John Burns, who says that Mao brought "about more deaths of his own people than any other leader in history." I'll give my two cents on this. I agree, I have called categorically stated my opinion that Mao was the most evil man of all time and he was disgusting. I disagree with a lot of what Chomsky says about this subject. But to say he supported the man is ludicrous.
Oh, "dumbass", your little copy and paste nonsense left this out. Page 176, paragraph 2, sentence 1, Chomsky says: "The terrible atrocity fully merits the harsh condemnation it has received for many years renewed here". "But lad, you are ignorant": It is, furthermore, proper to attribute the famine to communism. That conclusion was established most authoritatively in the work of economist Amartya Sen, whose comparison of the Chinese Famine to the record of democratic India received particular attention when he won the Noble Peace Prize a few years ago."
In the next paragraph, Chomsky quotes Sen, when he makes the comparison that the Indian famine after WW2 was attributable to India's "political system of adversarial journalism and opposition" whereas China's "totalitarian regime"(Chomsky's words, not Sen's) suffered from "misinformation 'that cut a serious response to the famine, and there was' "little political pressure" 'from opposition groups and an informed public.'" I disagree with some of this. No doubt there was misinformation by local commanders and even the people and most of that was because of the system, but I have quote Mao on here before talking about sacrificing millions for the Chinese revolution. Frank Dikkoter's book Mao's Great Famine has great accounts of misinformation as well as Mao: The Unknown Story, which I said was one of my fav's in the poster information thread, to reason you mentioned Noam on this thread. Exposing me as someone who likes Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky, as if I have never praised the two before on here, which I have, many a time, even threads you have derailed before.
So, Chomsky is quoting a Noble Prize winning economist - not that winning that means a great deal - but the claim was that Noam Chomsky thought the deaths of millions were great. So far, no mention of that or even a hint of it. Let's move on and see if he thought it was all "admirable", the millions of deaths that occurred. Even though the quoted passage from copy and paste boy, is obviously out of context.
And here we get to what Chomsky is talking about. Page 176, paragraph 5, Chomsky takes on Ryan's "criminal indictment" of totalitarian communism. "India and China had 'similarities [that] were quite striking' including death rates, when development planning began 50 years ago, Sen and his associate Jean Dréze observe, 'but there is little doubt that as fas morbidity, morality, and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India,' as in education and other social indicators." But laddddddddddd, you are ignorant: "From 1949 to 1979, 'China... achieved a remarkable transition in health and nutrition' while, 'no comparable transformation has occurred in India.'" And, you '"nitwit", "miscreant","dumbass": "As a result, as of 1979, 'the life of the average Chinese has tended to be much more secure that that of the average Indian.' If India had adopted China's social programs, 'there would have been about 3.8 million fewer deaths a year around the middle 1980's.'" "But, ladddddddddddddddddddddddddd, you are ignorant: That indicates that every eight years or so, more people in addition die in India - in comparison with Chinese morality rates - than the total number that had died in the gigantic Chinese famine(even though it was the biggest famine in the world in this century)." But, lad, nitwit, dumbass, miscreant, you are ignorant: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboards with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," them years being 1858-1961.
In the next paragraph, Chomsky again quotes Dréze and Sen, as well as giving footnotes to each of their analysis. No need to worry, they'll be provided at the end of the post.
Then, Chomsky goes on to the Chinese achievements, again, quoting credible sources the achievements he condemned by a Stalinist regime, which he condemned. By the false socialism claimed by Mao, which he has condemned. By the country supported by the USSR, which he condemned. But lad, you are ignorant: "China's 'remarkable achievements in raising life expectancy and quality of life to levels that are quite unusual for poor countries' came to an end in 1979, when 'the downward trend in the morality [in China was] at least ha;ted, and possibly reversed.' The reversal in 1979 is directly traceable to the market reforms instituted that year. These lead to a 'general crisis in health services." The standard neoliberal(stupid word to use by Chomsky in this context and with China) formulas required 'severe financial stringency', which undermined the 'rural and medical health care' that were components of the communal agricultural system. The effects of the destruction of this 'pillar of support for China's innovative and extensive rural medical services' were ' particularly server on women and female children.' From 1979, there was a 'steady decline in the female-male ration in the population' and a decline of two years in the female life expectancy, after steady growth in the pre-reform period." Now, "dumbass", what has been said so far that has Chomsky expiating for totalitarian communism? By pointing out some facts that counter the "we didn't do that" west tripe? My god, "but lad, you are ignorant." See what happens when you copy and paste? But "dumbass", there's more.
The sources Chomsky uses:
Hunger and Public Action - Jean Dreze, Amartya Sen - Google Books chapter 11
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
And many more in that chapter. So, besides the copy and paste nonsense you have no idea about, it seems you don't even know what Chomsky was on about and that he has condemned Mao, many a time.
Nutrition and health in China, 1949 to 1989. [Prog Food Nutr Sci. 1990] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.globalgeografia.it/temi/P...in%20China.pdf There's literally hundreds of stuff about how life expectancy rose in China.
But "dumbass", famines in China were not just man made. Even Dikkoterr has admitted as such. The weather was awful in China and affected harvesting, etc. Here's a link to 45 million dying in the mid 1800's and even before that. As well a famines in countries claiming to be capitalist:
FAEC - FEARFUL FAMINES OF THE PAST
Here dumbass: The four years between 1333 and 1337 were a period of unimagined suffering throughout China, and it is highly probable that it was in this era that the seeds of disaster were sown for Europe's Black Death, which appeared in the following decade. Famine and pestilence laid the whole country waste. Excessive rains caused destructive flooding, and according to Chinese records 4,000,000 people perished from starvation in the neighbourhood of Kiang alone.
"But, lad, you are ignorant": The four famines of 1810, 1811, 1846, and 1849 are said to have taken a toll of not less than 45,000,000 lives. In 1875-1878 four provinces in northern China, the district known as the "Garden of China," suffered a failure of crops owing to lack of rain, in an area about the size or France, 9,000,000 people perished.
Two recent period of dearth in China that awakened wide interest and elicited generous contributions from the United States for relief work(they're not always bad, you know) were the famines of 1906 and 1911, when floods in the Yangtze River basin affected 10,000,000 people residing in an area the size of the State of Kentucky.
"But, lad, you are ignorant:" Chinese famine of 1928 There's another 3 million.
See how easy it is to copy and paste? But dumbass, just so there's no confusion. Here is my own personal views about Mao: History's most dangerous man I think in that thread, comrade Cael gives me a good hiding about the life expectancy in China as well as other advances. I didn't take what he said seriously and only really looked into the stuff when I saw Chomsky saying the same things in Rouge States and at the time of that thread, I was on a bit of a "socialism is North Korea" phase.
And as I pointed out, dumbass and you countered with no words of your own, jut copy and paste garbage, two of the countries on your little list were supported by capitalist countries. You're obsessed with Chomsky and Cambodia, but impervious to the fact that Thatcher kept Pot's seat warm at the UN and sent the SAS over to train them. And your rat infested kip supported Romania's draconian dictator, right until the end, which escaped lunatic jingoistics like Kaplin who stupidly wanted an answer from Chomsky that the United States only supports malign dictatorships, not bad ones and he wished Chomsky would have been with him in Romania at the fall of Ceausescu, oblivious to the fact America and Britain supported him, right until the end.
And "dumbass", let's nor forget your precious anti-Chomsky reader and who wrote it. Firstly, as you can see from above, it takes out of context many things, but leaving all of that aside. It was edited by David Horowtiz. And since you love personal attacks so much, this is a man who use to be a communist. Not only that, he actually thinks Obama is a communist now. And has delusions about Muslims wanting to kill everyone, between 100 to 700 million, whatever the figure was.
Now, the reason I am not going to go through all of these things is because it would a) take up too much time and b), most of what I have read from Chomsky's 200 lies, has been taken out of context, or simply a down right lie about him. However, you'll find that most of these sites don't actually tackle anything that he is saying, they just take out of context what he said or deride him for not condemning something enough, in their eyes. I said I would leave the poster in question who has fantasies about me being raped alone, as I have responded a plethora of times to his copy and paste nonsense, to which he doesn't reply, only comes back on another thread derailing it and bringing up the same topic, which I again go through and again, he repeats the same tactics of copy and paste. It should be pointed out that his only non copy and paste posts have shown his innate hatred for Muslims and homosexuals. Oh and at the start of this thread, he wrote a very ineffable line about religion, which has never been seen before, at all! If Hitchens had of been asked of it, his career would have ended decades ago.
But, lad, you are ignorant!
Is Gay Pride necessary?
Originally Posted by yobosayo
You Christian fundamentalists - although I doubt you even believe in with you copy and paste are an nothing more than a teenage troll with your "dumbass" line - are an absolute danger to society and your defense of mass murder is repulsive. Thankfully, only people who post 20 posts a day defending the brits and people who hate Muslims share some of your sentiments. The thing is though, the people on here who post 20 posts a day and the trolls don't exist in real life and the anti-Muslim loons on here wouldn't dare get off their arse and tackle Islamic fundamentalist - again, the challenge is there for you to counter the group who told me that the Taliban were all not bad at the GPO every Saturday, given you people fear an Islamic Europe - but you Christian Fundamentalists lunatics do exist, you are real. And you're hell bent on dragging the rest of the world into the oblivion in the middle east with your welcome cards ready for the return of Jesus and the annihilation of the Jews and Muslims.
But, your trolling on this thread has led to me to put you on ignore from now on. Your slow down the loading screen, making it difficult in some cases to locate posts and as the anti-homosexual references quote above show, you're an odious individual.