well yeah. Chomsky is also more enlightening and insightful than an episode of Good Eats. You can compare them if you’d like but it’d be meaningless. Jordan Peterson is enlightening to teenage dudes who don’t have their shit together and have a hard time seeing a positive path ahead of them. JP explains this path and it’s reachability and does so in a way that helps people looking to get their shit together actually get it together. I don’t even see how that’s comparable to what Chomsky is or does unless you’ve flattened JP down into another political mouthpiece and judge him in that light only, instead of a complex person with pros and cons just like anybody else.
+Blunt Force Trauma . chomsky has been very clear that his vision of "anarchism" is defined as legitimacy of law by maximal consent i.e. democracy . According to chomsky, Marx himself was very vague about approaches - most of what he wrote was just an analysis of societies. The lack of a very clear approach is definitely a weakness in Marx's writings, but no more so than many many other writings - but on this basis, chomsky has scoffed at the idea of "marxism" being a real thing. You can hear chomsky on "marxism" by a simple search on youtube or any other search engine
+Blunt Force Trauma Having read Chomsky on Marxism, I do find it laughable to claim that he is a Marxist. And no Marxist of any kind would regard him as part of the club.
***** It is not up to me to prove that he is not a Marxist, which seems silly anyway. (Is it really even worth debating?). But if you want to assume that he is, then it is your job to prove it. No one is obligated at the beginning to prove the negative. To prove it you must have sufficient knowledge both of Marx and Marxian thought, and also the thought of Chomsky himself, in order to even begin proving this. Among other things you'd have to square3 that claim with Noam Chomsky's critique of Marx and Marxism. And I think it is not irrelevant that one cannot find ACTUAL, undeniable Marxists (including scholars Marxist scholars in Marxism), who would recognize Chomsky as a Marxist. And it won't do even to point out some instance in which Chomsky agrees with Marx or some Marxist on some point or another. Even Martin Luther King who explicitly rejects Marxism as incompatible with his theistic, personalist philosophy, nonetheless found some point here or there where he did agree. Even the stoic Seneca, who rejects epicureanism, nonetheless founds some points of agreement. What you must show is that Marxism is Noam Chomsky's basic philosophical position, or at least so central to his position that Chomskyian thought could not be Chomskyan thought if he rejected it. When I read Chomsky the first thing that occurs to me with the Marxist label is:"What in his thought indicates a Marxian philosophical commitment? Is it simply that he agrees with Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Lenin.. A lot of people, non-Marxist and Marxist, would agree with her. Anti-Marxist philosopher Bertrand Russell would agree. So what?"
***** I haven't seen your explanation of what way Chomsky is a Marxist. Where is it that you show that Marxism is Chomsky's basic philosophical position? I must have missed it. But I must see and examine your argument, if you have one. If not, then my reply stands. And he burden of responsibility still is with you. Again, I don't find credible evidence in Chomsky's own writings that is he a Marxist, but much of the Anarchist critique of Marx, and some occasional points where he happens to agree with some Marxist (as he does with some ancient Greek thinkers and men of the Enlightenment).
This should be mandatory to watch in every highschool. This guy explains in five minutes not only how the cold war worked, but how global superpowers work as well. The basic thinking that goes on behind complex foreign policies, propaganda techniques and economic decissions, made simple in just a little over five minutes. Amazing and eye-opening.
More & More People are Recovering from usa School Systems, Like Recovering _ _ _ _ _ (fill in the blank/"Phil n the Blanks"). Noam basher's are Always consistant in their level of truths & Evolvements, Yabba Dabba Doo Your Homework!
rillloudmother probably took him just as long, he doesn't just pluck the information out of thin air. He just is sufficiently confident in his assessment and knows how to articulate it.
Yumidori Iro Indeed. He started very early, but is brilliant none the less. High IQ is NOTHING without determination, support and opportunity. Chomsky is also a HUGE badass dressed as a school teacher.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" -Einstein Chomsky doesn't even really need to form an explanation; he just states it as simple facts. That's what happens when you have all of the possible prerequisite knowledge of a topic
MonkeyKong He's an intelligent and interesting person for sure, but I think you are being foolish by putting him on this god-like pedestal by saying "That's what happens when you have all of the possible prerequisite knowledge of a topic". No one can have all possible knowledge of any topic.
Any scholar of history knows that history repeats itself. Certain fundamentals will thus always be present and you need only ask a few simple questions to understand the simplicity of it... What is the belief system, ideology the ruling elite needs to propagate amongst their society to justify themselves in their actual struggles amongst themselves for power, and the outside for resources. Based on that it's pretty obvious what any government machinery is doing to it's people and the outside World and why. In modern times, take the dominant super power, the US...wtf is it meddling so expensively in the Middle East...a bunch of citizens will say 'freedom' 'democracy' (fighting communism? whatever works for the times...Muslims? let's do the Crusades over again etc )...those are the ideologies propagated as justification to make the masses feel good, get behind it, sacrifice their kids, tax, whatever...'believe'. What are the gains in resources? Oil (in this case). History answers these questions, people are uneducated, thus history repeats itself. Chomsky is a political philosophiser, the greatest of our time... He's showing us how to see through the bullshit we find it so hard to dismiss, yet what we know every Empire in history does over and over.
Paul B I don't necessarily disagree with you, I guess I don't see it that way because I am not exposed to the same ideas as you are, not being of the US.
Chomsky is such a bright individual. Just by his rate of speech, and the several topics he mentioned you could tell that his brain is just dripping with knowledge, cognizance seems to stream out of his lips.
***** What's wrong with being a writer, he has written books. The word has the power to spark change. He may not have caused a revolution, but it all starts with an idea.
Oasix21 You forgot that Chomsky is so bright that you can almost feel the warmth coming from his halo, and when he speaks that his dripping knowledge is scented myrrh, and tastes of honey. Nothing is more blissful then to be wrapped in the self knowledge that Chomsky gives to humanity...so dreamy.
It's really interesting how the people who oppose Chomsky on ideological grounds never cite a single point he makes that they disagree with. They just say ignorant things like "Chumpsky hates America". And when they do try to dispute something he says they show that they never even understood what was said like the guy below who says "if free countries are the most brutal..." He never said that. It's bizarre.
That's horse shit. He's a liar. And I WILL point out specifics even though they don't pertain to this subject. On Israel/Palestine, at Harvard he gave a speech and said "nobody believes that Arab leaders told their citizens to evacuate, Benny Morris has proven this to be false." Ironically, if you read Benny Morris's book on the subject, you'll find on literally just the 2nd page that this is only not true, but the opposite of what Benny Morris actually said. He actually said the Arab leaders evacuated at least a dozen villages. But Chomsky has an agenda of blaming the entire Palestinian refugee problem after the war for Independence on the Jews.
It's not bizarre. It's very simple and Chomsky himself has pointed it out. He is "attacking" a form of fundamentalism, which means the people who believe it simply can't hear the critique. Also let's not forget, what Chomsky was saying here in the 80's was so remote from the standard rhetoric, responses like the ones you mentioned were the norm. I can just imagine what it was like for him in the 60's lecturing like this.
When the US places missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR its just business but when the USSR reacts by putting missiles in Cuba suddenly its a Cuban Missile Crisis. So is the US saying that pointing nuclear weapons at another country is wrong or just pointing them at America is wrong?
@Bruno56 I am with you i hate communisim and Islam but Iran should be left alone, Iran is a powerful country with a relatively educated people, yes iran is islamic but it is not the same islamic as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, there are parties of Banksters who would love the US to provoke war with Iran as the profits would be phenominal, again Islam is a disease but regardless it is just a religious ideology and not every follower of islam is as disturbed as the ideaology itself, so just research and think as things do not always remain the same, Iran was good in the 1970s moderate islamic country but things did change it became more extreme, and right now any war would push the population of Iran in to extremism best on this note to just stay out of Iran.
It simply cannot be overstated how little the Soviet Union resembled democratic socialism or even thorough Marxism. I like that he took care to address that.
The point about the US overthrowing or hindering regimes that prioritise their own interests ahead of conflicting American interests is completely correct. There are so many examples of this.
Chomsky was an outright force of nature in his younger years. The shot at 2:05 reminds me of the slow mo of Ralph Wiggum's heart breaking in 'I love lisa'.
JackJincklesJones Jr. Haha I didnt even notice this properly until you said it. They're just chilling in some chairs in the middle of a forest or something! :P
All true. People misinterpret Chomsky as anti-American. I believe he is more anti-American Imperialism, which used to have a solid foundation in American society. Even Libertarians used to recoil at American Imperialism, until they attached themselves to the Republican Party.
Jeff Johnson To build on that, Chomsky is more American that A LOT of people. American's always cite free speech and freedom of choice and the bill of rights etc. whenever its convenient for them but when someone like Professor Chomsky exercises those rights he gets criticized as being "un-american." I can't think of anything MORE american. The man still pays his taxes and contributes to society and everything else and exercises his rights. He rebels when he doesn't agree and conforms to norms when he does. The man is an amazingly free individual and I respect him so much. Does that mean I agree with everything he says? No. The main reason why I enjoy the man so much is 99% present of what he is just presenting facts and he lets them do the talking. He doesn't rely on emotionally charged rhetoric.
Hmm...I was born and raised in USSR and I didn't feel I was living in a dungeon. In fact I had a rather content life. Raised under Soviet Socialism we knew that our futures would be taken care of, with all the basic necessities of life provided to us. We had a right to be employed, right to housing (provided free of charge by the state), free healthcare and post-secondary education. We knew that we will never end up poor and hungry on the street through no fault of our own, because of lay offs or downsizing etc. Over 99% literacy rates, no unemployment, no homelessness, compulsory Secondary education, nothing like that is possible in Capitalism Living in North America right now, I don't feel that I am somehow "more free". In fact I felt a lot more constrained by economic boundaries. I experienced fear I could never imagine in USSR - like fear of going broke and homeless through no fault of my own, fear of disability, terrible isolation and loneliness because unlike USSR, North America has no true sense of community and no true multiculturalism, it is a highly individualistic society with very egotistical, selfish ideals. All this talk of "freedom" is for imbeciles. The only definition of freedom and happiness that exist in North American society is MATERIAL GOODS. Whenever you hear "pursuit of happiness and freedom" from your TV screen - the background is nearly always - expensive toys that men and women like. It's not an accident. By choosing capitalism USSR traded economic security and social justice for cheap goods in colorful packaging. But the people didn't become "more free" they became broke, hungry and desperate while only select few benefited from this materially. USSR's rich natural resources went to foreign corporations while the people received less than 1% of their market value. We don't have "more freedom" we have freedomS (things we can lawfully do with impunity) and they are different in Capitalism and Soviet Socialism. There isn't a single true definition of word freedom except "will bound by law" or an antonym to captivity or slavery. You are no more "free" to alter USA's foreign policy, for example than you are free to alter USSR's foreign policy. And please don't tell me that the 2 Wall Street puppets you can pick from is a better guarantee of "more freedom" than a one-party regional representation system of Soviet Union. The interests of 2 presidential candidates are exactly the same - they are interests of Wall Street not your interests. In a sense - by choosing capitalism you are choosing a staggeringly high probability of destitution and as a trade off - you are allowed to publicly express your discontent maybe even call on to armed uprising against the government like Alex Jones. But obviously - you will not be able to change a thing and alter your pathetic condition. Capitalism - is the freedom to rant - the only freedom that is truly yours. And you, and your children are paying a very high price for it.
Very interesting and (if I may say so) very well written considering that English is not your first language. I would imagine that you have a better command of the language than many of the native speakers you rub shoulders with wherever you are on the North American continent. Chomsky, I would guess, must have been speaking round about 1980. At that time it was very difficult for westerners to visit the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries. If we did, we certainly couldn't travel freely. I remember that time. Probably his "dungeon" perception was in large part influenced by that fact. It is difficult to escape that image - that impression - when one sixth of the earth's surface is effectively closed off to you, though clearly your description trumps his, since you speak from direct experience. So perhaps I am wrong when I say this, but in my imagination, the Soviet Union at its worst was a rather dark, oppressive place. I say so because I have read the opinion of a journalist who lived there (в Москве) in the '80s. It is also worth mentioning that the Anglosphere - particularly beyond the United States - was much freer then. Educational standards were higher (again I exclude the U.S.A.), people wrote and spoke better, habeas corpus hadn't been abolished (or as good as), speech and opinion was less proscribed, you couldn't be held indefinitely without trial, torture was unthinkable and in places like Britain, Canada and New Zealand etc., there was a social safety net as well. It was less than forty years ago, but things have changed an awful lot - and largely not for the better. So you are probably - and understandably; inevitably - comparing the Soviet Union then with "the West" now. Unfortunately, it is not possible for either of us to compare the Soviet Union then with the West then by direct experience of both. But if I read your post correctly, I concur with the central thrust of it. There is no absolute freedom, it is relative and, in large part, subjective. For my part, I would suggest that if we give people the best education that they are able to absorb and a job with sufficient money, that is about as much 'freedom' as any of us can expect. If you throw in a few less measurable things like family support and an agreed, national social contract, that's about it.
I happen to be much more familiar with Chomsky's contributions to psychology (in particular - psycholinguistics) then I am with his political lectures....I studied his theories in detail during my university years... As far as English is concerned, - I attended a specialized school with early English instruction in USSR. I would have to say that I am equally comfortable with both English and Russian. I actually catch myself having thoughts in both languages. I learned other languages afterwards, but I am not in any way as comfortable with them as I am with English and Russian. Partly, it may be because of the overall amount of English literature (both classical and modern) that I went through as well as the fact that I have lived, worked and studied in the West for a long time... Interestingly, I found many of the Soviet propaganda statements (then) about American (and generally Capitalist) way of life to be true when I moved to North America. As you can imagine they were somewhat exaggerated (both sides are guilty of that I'm sure), but not baseless or unsubstantiated.
On the greater point on the topic of Materialism, you can prescribe that American culture has transformed as once being about strong family tradition and the American dream into a metamorphosis of Luxury brands and cheap products that suckle the life of the American people. God in the traditional sense has become dollar bills, and it gives you power and status that gets into the personalities of those who thirst for it. Living in North America, people will spend their whole lives to earn just enough to be able live in a big house on a mortgage and live only 10 hours there a week because they are working. However, even the USSR of all places still has a culture of materialism. Yes, as a collectivist society, you would think that people would give up the luxuries for the greater good of the people. However, if you sight that the USSR was more close to an oligarchy, there would be individuals of mass power and wealth who would live comfortable while some areas would remain with famine and poverty. It doesn't matter where you are in the world, the people who make up the culture or the education, people will be people, and those who aren't as strong will suffer. Its a series of growth and decay, and I think we are currently in decay
yomamasapeach I would still prefer to live under Soviet Socialism than under Capitalism. Regardless how "oligarchical" the system may have been, it was not responsible for anywhere near as much destitution, illiteracy, inadequate healthcare and education and the gap between haves and havenots as USA (and current capitalist Russia) are known for. I don't think that "suffering is eternal and unchanging everywhere and at all times" philosophy of fatalism is a good enough reason to stop us from trying to institute a better system than one we currently have in most places of the world. And, speaking of freedoms - one isn't free if he has nothing to eat and no place to call home. Maslow's Hierarchy - should be the basic model for any society in my opinion.
TheHallucinati Thank you so much "TheHallucinati" for showing to us your opinion on this issue. I've found it very useful and extremely educational to read "another view" of the way of life we're used to inhabit. It's needless to say that you are a very intellectual person and for that reason I want to ask you, in spite of my poor knowledge, a very open question that I hope you freely discuss in a large way, because is very difficult, in the country where I live, to find someone that really lived in a Communist country (without counting the strange case of "Semi-Communist / Semi-Capitalist" China): In which way a person, in the USSR, could choose the way of life that he wanted to live? That is, how important was the money in a Communist country and the relation to property (materials)? And about China; what do you think about their political / economical system? Sorry for this long questions and thank you very much in advance for your time. And sorry for my dreadful and skill-less english.
It's certainly a point of view I never read in the history books in grade school. I used to read the entire books ten times each year, and I still remember the contents. Those Catholic schoolbooks tell nothing from this overall view.
***** There's also James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me". Actually, it's fun finding out what the Catholic hierarchy avoids revealing about church history. As for unseethed, I agree. Andrew Jack should remain the fifth and last of the great presidents in ranking.
His objectivity is disconcerting. I have a similar point of view concerning the MAD doctrine. As it was, each state could have targeted it's own population, it was equivalent. The terror was milked on both sides to keep people frozen in the narrative of the state. Some fools make light of nuclear war nowadays. Ordinary people were digging bomb shelters in their backyard during the 60's and it was a direly serious affair.
***** Russia did inherit some good management structures. The tradition of bureaus and laboratories has been maintained. It is a high spin off economic environment where redundancy is reduced to a minimum and technology transfer opportunities made as available as possible. Economic circumstances imposed incremental development which was a blessing in disguise.
Chomsky's Consistence in his views are somehow unique; this consistency is and has been his winning edge in his discussions. While the opponents try to pinpoint specifics to argue over, Chomsky reminds them of their myopic view out of disregard for the context. Chomsky's intelligence and articulateness is really stunning even at the age of 83.
I used to live in the soviet union. I don't understand what is evil about it. People get up in the morning and go to work to earn their living. Kids go to school. I used study art and ballet there. Sounds evil enough?
+veronicav27 because you were russian. It was hell on earth for everyone from germany to korea and from chechnya to afghanistan, unless you were a russian slave master.
+SHAD0WB0LT Maybe, but that was for a reason... Germany was definitely for a reason. Korea a lot of people think was better off then. Other countries too, there were problems there. For soviet citizens was ok.
veronicav27 better off then? what the hell are you gibbering about? first, north korea still exists, and second, the soviets were responsible for a war that killed 4 million people.
veronicav27 korea was under japanese colonial rule until the u.s. and ussr invaded, remember? the un created a zone of division. the soviets grabbed the north and decided to rebuild their share of korea in their own image. they created the north korea we know of today and armed them to conquer the rest of the peninsula.
An honest question, and if I missed something, please let me know. Did Chomsky just say that Russia wasn't really a threat during the Cold War and that the whole thing was largely US fabrications? I'm thinking specifically of the Cuban Missile Crisis where we came within a hair's breadth at *least* twice to at least one nuke being launched. I'm not a Chomsky fan, but even so, I feel like I simply must be missing something here because to say that Russia wasn't a threat basically outside its borders seems like an indefensible position.
DJFLDJFL Quote Chomsky precisely and then say which part of the quotation you disagree with. Otherwise misreadings and unjustified interpretations tend to take place.
mr1001nights I understand and somewhat agree, but unfortunately, that way also eliminates context. He spends the first portion of the video arguing that there is no discernible correlation between a country's internal freedom or repression and how aggressive they behave outside its borders. He cites Nazi Germany and today's USA as contrasting examples of this. Building on that, please watch from 1:00 to 2:10. Chomsky builds on his previous point saying that Russia is/was a threat to its own people and government internally. Externally, they were a threat to immediately neighbouring countries like Afghanistan. What he says after about every Russian aggression incident during the Cold War being fabricated. He says this at 1:59.
DJFLDJFL I think he says that we exaggerated the threat to the US, not that they were no threat. I'm sure you'll agree that there are many cases (Vietnam, Nicaragua etc) where the US liked to claim, without evidence, that these countries were puppets of the Kremlin--always exaggerating Russian influence in order to justify intervention. That the sandinistas would attack the US or that Ho Chi Minh would paddle in his canoe to America and rape your grandmother or something. Now, you say you're referring specifically to the Cuban Missile Crisis when thinking about "Russian aggression". Yet Kennedy had nuclear missiles in Turkey pointing at Russia before Russia put any in Cuba. How then can it be interpreted as anything but a defensive position on the part of the USSR? Certainly, by US standards this was a mild reaction. The US feels justified in using overwhelming force in response to much lesser provocations and considers it outrageous if anyone does to the US a small fraction of what the US does regularly to other countries. In the end Chomsky might tell you that the US was the main expanding imperialist force during the Cold war, and that the USSR had to settle for a strategy of containment. These roles had more to do with the power each country possessed than with their respective degrees of internal freedom.
mr1001nights Thanks for your response. I don't disagree with the thrust, but I think I'm caught up on his use of and emphasis on the phrase "every single time" at 1:59. I can grant that it's a conversational mistake if that's what it is. Otherwise, it sure sounds like Chomsky's famous anti-US bias. He certainly isn't alone, he certainly makes many great points, and I'm glad he's around as a strong and knowledgeable counterpoint. I just don't think that his view of the US is changeable almost regardless of what they do. I realize he's nearly 90 now etc, but he's certainly had "US=bad" glasses on for much of his work that I have seen. Fortunately for him, there is a lot of material on which to base that position.
DJFLDJFL If the US either invented, or at the very least exaggerated the threat that the Russians posed, this can certainly be described as a "Soviet threat that has been created and usually fabricated". In order to demonstrate that it was a "conversational mistake" you'd have to argue instances where the threat wasn't exaggerated.
He mentions Greece in 1947 as an example of unnecessary american intervention against a non existent Soviet threat. That is completely false. The american intervention in the Greek civil war followed those (interventions) supporting the communists. No historian disputes this today, particularly after the opening of the archives in a number of formerly communist states. What he claims here is simply not true. His wider point, which he does not explicitly make, is that Soviet imperialism was, with the exceptions he concedes, practically non-existent. Well, I guess there's a reason he doesn't make this point explicit, it's because it also not true. It was global, and it was aggressive. He also says that the Soviet system had a floor that wouldn't allow people to fall through the cracks. How would we know? How does he know? Perhaps he asked those exiled at the Gulags? I love Chomsky, and criticism is necessary in any open society, but quite often his is not fair.
maharajahdann - I’m an historian and I DO dispute it. In 1947 there was no threat of a Soviet intervention or takeover of Greece, whatsoever. The Stalinist agenda did not involve Greece. This has been quite clearly documented on both sides. No serious researcher today disputes that the Greek insurrection was exclusively the work of local Communists and other anti-establishment elements. In fact, the leadership of the KKE- The Greek Communist Party- which took its marching orders directly from Moscow, officially condemned the movement and publicly denounced the insurrectionists for taking up arms, thereby absolving itself- and the Soviet Union- of any responsibility. If the movement of the Greek Left were to succeed, Stalin would of course swoop in to claim the prize; otherwise, the partisans were really abandoned to their own devices, and this was primarily why they failed. The Greek Ultra-Right, together with the British, did everything they could to couch the whole thing as an imminent Soviet threat in order to drum up U.S. support for the royalists and pro-fascist elements that controlled the army ( during the War- in marked contrast to the vast majority of the Greek people-many monarchist officers had openly collaborated with the Axis Occupation). The United States was only too happy to take up the torch, and deployed Gen. James Van Fleet, together with military advisors, financial support and materiel- including, for the first time, the use of napalm bombs which claimed the lives of many innocent civilians and devastated entire swaths of land in the north. So, Chomsky is absolutely correct on this.
Read 1984 by Orwell and you will find more truth about the SOVIET Union than anything this communist ever said. Do not be misled. Read the history of the SOVIET Union, Communist China, Cambodia. Read about the "dark totalitarianism" that these people lived through. Read about the 18.5 million who did not survive the slave labor camps in USSR or the 100 million victims of communism worldwide. Try the "Black Book of Communism" or "Communism" by professor Richard Pipes
willieboy3011 yet. wait until capitalist interests do not get what they want. peak oil is coming this year, lets see how that one plays out. and there have been horrific examples of capitalist interests leading to genocide. check out East Timor 1975 and see what happened to the island of peaceful people that didn't want to aid in the capitalist cause. all the -isms just care about their own power, exercising it and expanding it whenever possible
willieboy3011 on your original comment: 1984 says, much to your discredit, *precisely* what Chomsky is saying, namely the superstate is fabricating an external threat in order to divert people's attention from the fact that it actually is at war not with an external entity, but with its own people (btw, your man Orwell was a socialist, just like Chomsky, in fact one of his major influences)
Orwell was a socialist, but even he was abhored by the horror that the communist dictator Stalin committed. Does this not make his warning about the danger in 1984 even more remarkable?
Agreed. Just listening to him I find him to be a well educated douche. Arriving at this realization after reading some of his writings and listening to him. He is a complete Socialist and anything other for him is described in negative light.
Well spoken, and more importantly, very accurate assessments....especially the part about nations being punished if not destroyed by America, if they do not acquiesce to her demands.
@ShadeToSun It requires a hell of a lot of reading, far more than I can claim to personally, but that's a continuous process. I think as long as you're willing to continuously challenge your perspective and remain committed to seeing through others people's eyes than it's hard to not reach reasonable, fair, and well-informed conclusions
@Fighting31406 and AntonBatey: I have a playlist but YT won't let us load URLs (antispam). So, just search out: Superpower Confrontation Fear and Reality in the Arms Race
In fact, unbeknownst to the Soviets, the missles in Turkey were obsolete anyway and were already (by that point) scheduled to be decommissioned and removed regardless, as they were being replaced by the then-newly developed submarine-launched Polaris SLBM's.
@beeroosterm It is well known within philosophy of science that you can't make positive guaranteed proofs (the socalled problem of induction). But a theory becomes more likely when it survives criticism (deduction).
@ShadeToSun Those words have filled me with hope and confidence in my own abilities, I hope with a bit of hard work and perseverance I'll be able to flourish as a free-thinking being, it seems that they're simply aren't enough of them.
@tannersanta I agree. I have never heard a substantive refutation of Chompsky's arguments, nor have I come across any information that refutes his facts in my own studies. His analysis is solid.
