I'm not sure why Dayne calls campism "ultraleft." I would suggest it is not "left" at all. That's why it is so easily able to line up with the global far right on issues like Syria, Ukraine, Bosnia etc. Gushing support for other rapacious imperialist powers or capitalist tyrants that aren't current US partners is right-wing, not ultraleft politics.
Chomsky, of course, had this tendency as the article shows, but he was never in the worst-case category. Yassin al-Haj Saleh, a communist political prisoner for 16 years in Assad's torture dungeons, is quite naturally angry about Chomsky's later horrible views on Syria. Yet in the first few years of the Syrian revolution, his views were much better, eg in the below 2013 interview (a few excerpts below https://chomsky.info/20130711/ So what happened after this? On the one hand, it may partly be that he just got too old. No offence to old people, I'm no youth myself, but yes I would imagine it became more difficult to think through complex issues in his 90s. However, Yassin is correct that Chomsky's "America-centric prism" (ironically which he argues directly AGAINST in the excerpt below) did tend to tip the balance into campism too often, even if a mild variety. Chomsky, as an anarchist critic of all states, obviously did not arrive there in the same way as former Stalinists, tankies, inverted liberals imagining they are now "radical," various alienated former spooks, discredited neoliberal warriors (eg Sachs), red-browns, paid Kremlin trolls etc did; he came to it via the quite correct starting point that we should first criticise "our own" side, where we can do more about the problem; he was never shy to condemn the likes of Milosevic, Assad, Putin etc as butchers etc, but this was less emphasised; but all too often he got completely carried away with this and lost the plot. Another aspect was his strong emphasis on media criticism; once again, very valid and useful; but if it is all consuming, criticising the biases and hypocrisy of "our own" side can tip over into inadvertently becoming apologist for other reactionaries. A third aspect is that Chomsky, like Pilger and others, suffered from the complex of believing eh always had to have an opinion on everything, given his public stature, yet in reality no-one is an expert on everything; hence, when they are discussing something they know a lot about, they can be excellent; when they express opinions on issues they do not understand at all and simply find too difficult to comprehend (eg Chomsky on the Balkans), they are compelled to fall back into default hollow "anti-imperialist" messaging devoid of any content, devoid of any relation to the actual situation they do not understand. Anyway, here are the excerpts from Chomsky's 2013 interview on Syria, where he was still able to show his better side: *Syrians today continue to receive blame because of the armed resistance taking centre-stage in a revolution whose protests were peaceful and remained so throughout its early months. Do you think that Syrians had other options but let them slip?* I don't think the Syrians made a choice. It happened in the wake of the Assad regime’s repressive response. Syrians could either have surrendered or taken up arms. To blame them is akin to saying that the Vietnamese made a mistake responding by force when their US-backed government started committing massacres. Sure, the Vietnamese made a choice to arm themselves, but the alternative was accept still more massacres. It’s not a serious critique. *In your view, what is Israel’s true position regarding the Syrian revolution?* Israel has done nothing to indicate that it is trying to bring down the Assad regime. There are growing claims that the West intends to supply the opposition with arms. I believe this is quite misleading. The fact of the matter is, that were the United States and Israel interested in bringing down the Syrian regime there is a whole package of measures they could take before they came to the arms-supply option. All these other options remain available, including, for example, America encouraging Israel to mobilize its forces along the northern border, a move that would not produce any objections from the international community and which would compel the regime to withdraw its forces from a number of frontline positions and relieve the pressure on the opposition. But this has not happened, nor will it, so long as America and Israel remain unwilling to bring down Assad regime. They may not like the regime, but it is nevertheless a regime that is well practised in accommodating their demands and any unknown alternative might prove worse in this respect. Much better, then, to watch the Syrians fight and destroy each other. *Your discourse unambiguously states that America and Israel have no desire to see the regime fall and that their actions are determined by the “better the devil you know” principle. How do you explain a counter-discourse, promulgated by analysts and intellectuals, especially among Leftist circles in Europe the US and the Arab world, which is based on the supposition of an American/Israeli/imperialist plot? For some people, the revolution in Syria has been a conspiracy from the outset. For others it was hijacked by the conspiracy.* For a long time, the Arab world and other places beside have played host to stories and illusions about the supernatural power of the United States, which controls everything through complex conspiracies and plots. In this worldview, everything that takes place can be explained in terms of imperialist conspiracies. This is an error. Without a doubt, the UnitedStates are still a great power and capable of influencing events, but they are not always able to manipulate them by means of complex conspiracies: this really is beyond their capacities. Of course the Americans do sometimes try to do this, but they fail, too. What happened in Syria is not outside our understanding: it began as a popular and democratic protest movement demanding democratic reforms, but instead of responding to it in a constructive, positive manner, Assad reacted with violent repression. The usual outcome of such a course of action is either a successful crushing of the protests or otherwise, to see them evolve and militarize, and this is what took place in Syria. When a protest movement enters this phase we see new dynamics at play: usually, the rise of the most extremist and brutal elements to the front ranks. On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 10:12 PM Michael Meeropol via groups.io <mameerop= [email protected]> wrote: > THANK YOU FOR POSTING THAT ARTICLE -- IT IS LONG BUT IT IS WELL WORTH > READING ... > > > I am someone who cut his eye teeth on THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLECTUALS > -- and have gotten to know Noam Chomskiy personally over the years. So it > was painful to read this article. I do think the writer is convincing --- > and YES, for the most part Chomsky (as an American) has focused on US > crimes --- not because he doesn't believe that other actors on the world > stage are not capable of committing crimes against their own people and > others but because he sees US citizens are primarily responsible for what > our government does --- > > If this writer is correct that Chomsky has ignored information > particularly about Syria and therefore has ended up on the "wrong side" of > history, that is most unfortunate because he (Chomsky) has a fantastic > international reputation. > > I do know that when he and his wife went to Lebanon and he interviewed the > leader of Hezbollah he came away with a very balanced view of that movement > --- and certainly in THE FATEFUL TRIANGLE (decades earlier) he delved > deeply into the massacres at the two refugee camps in Lebanon perpetrated > by Christian militias --- > > AGAIN -- if the writer is correct, obviously Chomsky has not done enough > deep study into Syria --- > > None of that should take away from a lifetime of incredibly important > contributions to our understanding of how the US ruling class rules and the > international criminality of that ruling class -- from Vietnam to Latin > America to the international "war on terror" --- > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 7:31 PM Dayne Goodwin via groups.io <daynegoodwin= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> *Chomsky’s America-Centric Prism Distorts Reality* >> *The author's perception of Washington's role in the world has ossified >> into a theology*, with the U.S. as a malevolent God >> Yassin al-Haj Saleh, a contributing writer at New Lines magazine, is a >> Syrian author and former political prisoner >> New Lines magazine, March 15, 2022 >> >> https://newlinesmag.com/review/chomskys-america-centric-prism-distorts-reality/ >> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#30866): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/30866 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/106824716/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
