Chomsky should have debated Huntington. He actually did once during the Vietnam war, but it wasn't interesting either.Can see it (and other debates) on his homepage.
You want to listen to some intelligent individuals, I would suggest Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Hayek or Rothbard. Perhaps Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, or Steven Levitt.
@fromis111 -- come on, admit it, you mastur-debater, you either (1) want hot looking girls, or (2) you're a brown-dirt cowboy who putts from the rough.
If (1), let me make this clear to you: pretty girls / women think you're an ugly, grotesquely obese, bald smelly pig. Uh, news flash: hot girls aren't attracted to Buckwheat - Vidal - Chomsky - Mailer - etc obsessed "intellectuals."
If (2), well, just be sure to clean the fecal bits off the tip of your pickle when you're done.
He still does the only thing lefties can really do. Critique. Anyone can pull apart any idea, of course when coming up with superior alternatives they are fucked (or at least after they have implemented them and millions end up dead)
@xknowledgeisfreex Chomsky's followers are usually anarchists anyway. They believe in voluntary collectivism not forced collectivism. That is fine by me. It leaves open the opportunity to have individual rights without the collective forcing you to embrace their ideas. Thing is, most of what Chomsky advocates can't be done without the state. That is why his followers are split, and half of them are loony. You can say "for the workers" all you want but it provides zero substance.
@AroundSun "most of what Chomsky advocates can't be done without the state. "
That's because most crimes Chomsky wants to see fixed are committed BY the state. Of course the agent responsible needs to be the one to right things. Chomsky, and the intelligent among his "followers" also understand quite well that the only thing standing in the way of libertarian socialism is the will of the masses. That's why he always says "we". He sees everyone as responsible for their society including himself.
@SkyGuySunny He is not a libertarian. You have this idea that he is some limited government, private property free market libertarian. He is not. Just his term libertarian socialism is enough to tip you off that he is a double talking democrat. "Workers taking control of production" this means nothing. He is either talking about socialism (which he is) or he is talking about self entrepreneurship (which he is not), He is not intelligent and would never debate an economist.
@AroundSun What you think libertarian means only applies in America, but it is twisted from its original meaning. Libertarian socialism is not a contradiction in terms. Look up this video on Youtube: "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms" and then look up libertarian socialism in Wikipedia for an overview of the tradition.
@SkyGuySunny I have, EVERY IDEA CONTRADICTS EACH OTHER and cancels each other out. If it is so plain to see, then you explain to me what libertarians socialism REALLY means and how it is in line with classic liberalism (jeffersonian liberalism). I have had people try to explain to me, but it is all very contradictory because most of what he wants done requires the state. His followers are confused and don't really agree on what he means either. They take it differently.
@AroundSun It is plain to see. The kinds of dehumanizing power structures and hierarchical economic relations present today are vastly different from those that existed at the time people like Smith and Jefferson were authoring the seminal works of classical liberalism. Taking their basic reasoning applied to today's power centers leads you to conclusions far less simplistic than "limiting state power," given that those centers of power and influence are now largely privatized.
@Philfa privatized through state funds lol. that the problem. not private organizations who gain their revenues voluntarily. Chomsky is a double talking liberal drone
@AroundSun That's not the point. They're private entities with massive power and influence and no accountability to the public whatsoever. There's no double talk. If you'd pay any attention, you'd notice he gives the exact same assessment of "free market capitalism" (namely, that it doesn't exist) that you and your ilk offer for today's state-capitalist system. But the broader issue is that the character of the modern corporation resembles that of the "state" in Smith's time.
@Philfa they dont have "massive power". you fall into every economic myth and fallacy ever devised. they only have the power the people give them. no public accountability? WRONG. The government has no public accountability. so are you saying that you want the state to force businesses to do things? yet you want there to be no state? chomsky drones are pathetic. bitch and moan and be envious of rich people that is all it is really about
@Philfa Bla Bla Bla Thats great. Since you can't counter argue my points and haven't refuted anything I will treat you like the economic illiterate you are. Good day Chomsky drone.
@SkyGuySunny Liberalism before Woodrow Wilson is the same as Libertarianism is today. Progressives and collectivists hijacked the word and Libertarians should take it back
Why would Perle even agree to this debate? He didn't even attempt to provide any argumentation. I have never seen someone so outclassed. Any student in the crowd would have faired better..
I remember back in the early eighties on the old MacNeil Lehrer News Hour. They would have a panel of editors from newspapers from around the country. They did it once a week I think. One of the panelists was from a communist newspaper. I don't remember his name or the name of the paper. He always contributed a very rational point of view to the discussion. Why are we so afraid of dissent in this country? If communism is so terrible why are we afraid to hear about it. What are we afraid of?
Chomsky for King of the world. Seriously, what can we do to get this guy exposed to a greater audience. He wont live forever. He must be heard. The "right" is always saying that the media are liberal. But people like this are never aired. You never see communist, or socialist views represented on the media. The narrowness of allowed opinion on our airwaves is tantamount to totalitarianism.
We have only ourselves to blame for undocumented immigration into this country. Where else could they go. We effectively destroyed their chances of trading amongst theirselves. There is no flourishing trade amongst Latin American countries because we dis-allowed small, independent, entreprenurial activities that could have become active, cross border enterprises between all nations in the region.
Chomsky's closing statements are almost beautiful. I wish every elected official would listen to them over and over again until he or she digested them. Perle is simply a commissar, who wants people not to look at the facts and documents, but rather just fall asleep in the cozy daydream that the American government is a selfless, generous, altruistic organization primarily concerned with the welfare of the disadvantaged.
Richard Perle KNOWS that Noam Chomsky is 100% correct, but because of his obligations to his handlers, he MUST deny and reject such blatant and well-documented truth.
This is the sort of thorough thrashing that a power-wielding right-winger like Perle deserved. If only Bush Jr. and other Republican candidates for the presidency had had to face the music in this way. Unfortunately, our wonderfully free-and-open society makes such thoughtful confrontations very rare events. Instead, we are treated to painfully narrow debate shows that are tightly controlled by the two dominant political parties so that no undesirable thoughts or figures may enter.
Yea this is ridiculous. I always wonder what his opponents think after they get destroyed. How can you still believe what you say after a debate like this?
the truly sad thing is it sounds like he just shut down and stopped listening, like a child who puts his/her fingers in his/her ears and says "la, la, la". after doing that he probably does believe the same things.
Perle knows what's going on. It's not like he's as oblivious and naive as he acted in this debate. His main point was that he hoped the audience would rely on what they hear in mainstream circles and not check up on things you might find in gov't docs like Professor Chomsky has.
Chomsky's concluding remarks are imperishable: A plea for justice so powerfully arresting never before was uttered, and Truth seldom had a more august Defender. Before him all propagandists lie prostrate in abject submission.
Hearts stir at his eloquent cry for peace, minds rouse from apathy, and all the world harkens to his lips. When this Gentle Philosopher bids us farewell, who shall give us another Noam Chomsky?
Quite simply, Chomsky absolutely reveals Perle for what he is: a tool employed by those in power to further disseminate and promote factually incorrect quasi-intellectual propoganda designed to defend the imperial nature of american international liberalism.
Perle loses
Anyone who watches this debate in its entirety can have no faith or belief in Perle or people like him. A U.S. run by Chomsky as President is almost to good to even dream of, so righteous, peaceful and honorable is this man.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky's argument is weak when it comes to the US promotion of international liberalism. He discounts economic progress in East Asia and Europe as being due to American dominance and control. But so what if US power depends, in these cases, on the growth of these counties? Isn't this a good thing? Would he rather have these countries look like N. Korea or the former Yugoslavia? -- because that was the alternative, absent our influence.
You mean our key debt creditors, also known as the Trilateral Commission, to whom we've exported dollar hegemony, central banking, inflationary and big business oriented policies, weaken the lower/middle classes via the inflation tax and the shift of wealth, all of by which they have the capital to loan us so the US can continue to grow exponentially higher than them, maintaining the standing of the US in the world, then applying economic and political pressure to conform to our interests?
What you may not have seen, which Chomsky illustrates in the whole debate, and maybe easy for the US which does have to live within the resulting death and injustice, is US support and choice of undemocratic Governments for exploitation and control of resources to place political control on "allies" and "enemies," rather than allowing countries to arrive to a point similar to ours though self discovery and encouragement. The result has been increasing enmity, our eventual bankruptcy and collapse
They will merely suffer the same fate (as they did) as we are now, as did the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire..pretty much any empire...millions of lives taken internally and externally in its rise, and corruption, bankruptcy and millions of lives taken and living in destitution in its fall. For stability overall, small government defending rights and nation and an informed, self reliant public is needed. The lesson has been taught for centuries, but has yet to be applied.
I kind've wished you replied with a good point to make the debate interesting. I really have no idea what you're trying to get across. I will say, though, that I agree with a philosophy which emphasizes a "small government defending rights and nation and an informed, self reliant public" The problem is the Nazis, Soviets, and now Islamic extremists don't share this view, and they have violently challenged countries which do.
1) The proposed Islam/West religion clash is ridiculous. If you research history, starting from the 1900's when West/Middle East relations were favorable, you'll see there are legitimate reasons why the region (not the religion) hates us. Islam is a propaganda tool used on both sides, intending to create an "us vs them" situation. There were significant problems before religion was brought up. Those problems are what need to be addressed to fix things, not the rhetoric.
2)The Treaty of Versailles placed extremely unfair blame on Germany for WWI, given Germany's issue was with Serbia alone but was forced to pay reparations for all countries involved. The Nazi movement grew from the treaty, which led to the Third Reich and WWI essentially continued.
3) Russia has been marginalized and isolated by the West for centuries. Predictably they would take an Anti-West side (not exactly logical, but they are human). But after Western Europe and the US exacerbated and provided troops for a civil war right after the Bolshevik Revolution to topple the new government, the rift was complete. Incidentally, Classical Communism called for small government and more societal control. But instigated overthrows causes paranoia and pushes totalitarianism.
Lastly, Stalin completely perverted Communism on his own (views probably change after some intervention by you know who). Lenin tried to have him ousted before he died.
I'm not excusing all the behavior and each are not perfect. But when you look at the facts rather than repeated rhetoric, you see that prior intervention caused the problems in each case you mentioned. As for internal problems, each nation can figure it out on their own.
Incidentally, it is interesting also to note the (re)emergence of China as a global power, and to assess the circumstances which have allowed it.
It is unquestionable that those sections of the world which have most embraced the dream of Communism have done so in rebellion against capitalism, and are without exception regions or populaces which had benefited least from its expansion.
It is therefore fairly clear that not only was Communism (or at least the propaganda of Marx's dream) a reaction of the oppressed internally, but also on a global level as well. In essence, the poorer nations have rebelled against the richer.
By the promotion (if not application) of Marx's ideas, the disillusioned and impoverished were persuaded to hand over total power to the State in order to return to relevance and power in the international community.
Indeed, as you pointed out, it is precisely how Hitler managed to ride to power -- he promised Germany a Third Reich to restore their former glory.
In each of these cases the dominant drive was a rejection of capitalism and the Western powers that fostered it. The poorer, yet rather large nations (the global proletariat) decided they would simply take back (or attain) power and standing by force. A declaration of independence from the capitalist network of the West, if you will.
That's not to say they were right, or correct, and it certainly does not excuse the atrocities committed by the various monsters who abused and used this process, but the very reason they were able to do so was because the people were ripe for a promise of national dignity and equality.
Of course (Germany aside), the swiftest success story in terms of military and political relevance was the USSR. As a result, the West pushed back, much as a large corporation does to new competition.
Soviet and American rhetoric aside, the Cold War was, essentially, an arms race. It was the well established company versus the young (yet threatening) upstart, and so they both threw their cash at trying to bankrupt the other. Sadly for Russia (and probably very luckily for everyone else), they newcomer simply couldn't keep up in the end, and bankrupted itself effectively out of business. The market became wide open for monopoly by the victor.
After all, while the two big guys were engaged in their advertising war (propaganda), their obvious attempts to undercut each other's business (alliances and treaties) and their refinement of product (the arms race and the promise of security it provides to their allies)... no-one paid much attention to the third guy who was slowly and carefully building a business model for the future.
Enter China, unravaged by the effects of a massive arms race. ;)
So, really, modern geopolitics can be viewed almost in terms of the marketplace itself; many of the same drives and goals apply as countries and coalitions operate in much the same way as competing businesses.
The corporations have done a good job so far running the cooperatives out of the market, but because everyone took their eye off China, allowing it to grow and consolidate, will it prove to have the business model that will succeed in the long term?
I guess we'll find out, but if so, if the commies win and dominate the marketplace of the future, it may be that the West has only itself to blame for inspiring such a widespread resentment of its product. It should have perhaps treated its consumers and workers a little better, instead of only caring for the profits of the executives.
Obviously this is just one long metaphor, but... isn't that how the marketplace actually works, according to the capitalists? ;)
one big challenge for that view, and that view mostly sits well with me- an informed, active public with all the resources in their own hands to combat the problems that they face day to day-, is that for better or worse, we do have a global community at this point. and i think that, too is a good thing. how it's run is currently unfavorable, but it is a large factor to be concerned with. but there are a lot of great ideas for this, and more always coming.
Plus, with the Trilateral's current economic systems, it's governments and big business who benefit much more while the populations are largely oblivious to the true monetary chaos occurring around them. While families struggled to make mortgage payments and obtain a reasonable standard of living, guess who made $800 trillion in global credit derivatives in a system where money is created from thin air because current debt BECOMES money, founded on our future promises to pay taxes and loans?
That was one of the most one-sided debates I've ever heard. Perle probably regretted agreeing to take part.
Incidentally, you can find a transcript of this at chomsky[dot]info.
Particularly brilliant was Chomsky's apt distinction between recognizing a country's existence and recognizing its legitimacy (or right to exist), and his observation that the latter concept does not exist in international law.
18 videos in the series and I just watched all of them in a sitting and I come away with utmost respect for Noam Chomsky. I´ve read only one of his so many, many books. I intend to read more. Yeah, it was a smackdown. Perle has the intonation of an intellectual but his oration has no substance. And when he referred to comments by Chomsky as ¨garbage¨ the audience showed it knew the difference.
That was hilarious. Pearle revealed himself for the intellectually dishonest ass he is almost immediately and Chomsky laid the beat down on him for it. Given this utterly humiliating defeat for Pearle it is no wonder that Chomsky sees zero mainstream press coverage nowadays. What phenomenal intellectual prowess: Chomsky proves yet again why he is, "arguably, the most important intellectual alive".
What a slaughter. Perle's rebuttles were the same character-slander each time. Chomsky would win probably 100-3, with 3 points just for the sheer confidence of QUOTING MACIAVELLI and expecting to win a debate thereafter.
There were nine "wide-ranging explanations of US involvement given in the Vietnam war". The first two are "idealistic imperialism and economic imperialism".
Good luck with locating any ilk of this in mainstream media.
"I judge ideas on their utility and not on their "truth"..." Henry Kissinger in "American Foreign Policy". And notice he places "truth" in quotes exemplifying the contempt Kissinger always has for the concept of truth.
The most refined shedders of blood have been almost always the most highly civilized gentlemen," to whom all the official terrorists "could not have held a candle.
I read Chomsky for 6 years, his technique is simple: you ignore the context of any given event, action by a government, successful economic system, etc. Then you attempt to either filibuster your opponent into silence, or just propagandize the same 5 or 10 events against your own country and make a good living from it.
Polling is a pretty weak science indeed, ask New Hampshire primary voters. The US government is democratic, therefore the opinion of Americans (reflected by their votes) is the only relevant opinion. If other countries dislike our government, we set up the UN so that they could bitch and complain all they wanted.
I don't know how much world opinion agrees with Chomsky. I want to pick up in the next post on "the opinion of Americans (reflected by their votes)" and "the US government is democratic."
Chomsky might reply that being democratic is not like an on/off switch - any government is democratic to the degree that its actions overlep with popular opinion - the will of we the people. How to measure that is an important question that I guess we haven't answered yet.
Regarding votes reflecting opinion, Chomsky would say that polling shows Americans would like universal health care, working toward peace with Iran, more 9/11 investigation, and neither party represents we the people's view
That is completely untrue. You must not be from the US. If you were, you would know that polls and public opinion play a huge part in our daily lives and what we think is actually followed pretty carefully.
Indeed, extremely carefully. If Tharnax had any knowledge of history, for that matter, he would know that the public opinion and public relations industries have developed very, very sophisticated methods and ties to government in the last hundred years. Public opinion is not a matter of nebulous speculation in a society in which 1/6 of all dollars are spent on marketing.
"followed pretty carefully"? You sir, are an idiot. If polling and public opinion were followed pretty closely, we would not be in Iraq, we would sign Kyoto, we would have universal healthcare, we would adhere to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to name only a few examples.
You are not qualified to speak on these issues. After joining youtube 2 years ago you have saved one video: Cop shoots himself in the leg. Why would you need to see that more than once? Unless you're twelve.
I strongly suspect it is the latter, johnnycon. Our munificent leader is, I think, just an astonishingly obtuse and oblivious baffoon. Cheney and Perle, on the other hand, both seem to be what one might call a functioning sociopath -someone who does not necessarily do anything overtly illegal or antisocial, but nonetheless has little or no capacity for empathy, nor any real willingness to modulate his behavior to accommodate the needs of others.
Unquestionably the latter ... Richard Pearle is unable to provide as much detail because in doing so give the game away.
At the end of the day it is fantastic of Richard Pearl to be up for a debate. I hear these days hes calling for a withdrawl from Iraq ... or am I just hearing things?
Chomsky might reply that being democratic is not like an on/off switch - any government is democratic to the degree that its actions overlep with popular opinion - the will of we the people. How to measure that is an important question that I guess we haven't answered yet.
Regarding votes reflecting opinion, Chomsky would say that polling shows Americans would like universal health care, working toward peace with Iran, more 9/11 investigation, and neither party represents we the people's view
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
he didn't make one point. chommsky utterly destroyed him. i've never seen such a lopsided debate. sarcasm doesn't come off so well when you attack is that of american nationalistic indoctrination. chomsky is the standard for american political thinking, unfortunately the few people have heard of him think "he's from neptune".
Nineteen years have passed since this was broadcast, and observe how the American public has since performed in national elections. Can there be any doubt that Richard Perle "won"?
National elections are not determined on the basis of a single debate held in the late 80s. Especially debates that most of the American population would never have heard before. Chomsky won this easily.
On another note, less than 25% of the american population voted in the last election.
In a sense you're not. But Perle and his ilk won through means which had nothing to do with their erudition, their ideals, their intellectual honesty, their humanitarianism...you get my point. A successful mugger or a rapist also has 'won' in a certain sense. Don't ask me to honour him for it.
A successful mugger or rapist has also 'won' in exactly the same sense. Perle and his ilk won by that token. Their winning had nothing at all do with intellectual honesty, idealism, humanitarianism, scholarship or any of the other qualities Chomsky demonstrated in such abundant measure. All that Perle brought to the discussion was a rich and plummy voice, which soon descended to monosyllables. In straight speechifying terms, he was probably better. Fat lot of good it did him.
Close debate? Are you kidding? Perle was a waste of time and space. He may as well not have been there. Chomsky could have done it all as a solo talk for all the difference Perle made. I don't know if there were flaws in Chomsky's command of facts - I seriously doubt it - but if there were, Perle was not the one to rebut them. He signed, sealed and delivered himself as an empty windbag devoid of substance.
Are you kidding? Perle may as well have not been present. Chomsky could have carried the evening solo, for all the difference Perle made. Call that a debate? It was a cakewalk.
Are you kidding? Close? Perle might as well have not been there. Chomsky could have carried the evening solo, for all the difference Perle made. It was a seminar, a one-man show with Perle playing the heckler with a fruity voice and a veneer of sophistication.
Man. What a real treasure Chomsky is. I think of someone like C. Hithchens, who fancies himself a talented debater--and he really is--and yet next to Chomsky, he's like a dwarf. How rich that a warmonger like Perle had to take such an intense public humiliation. I love it. Bovall, this is brilliant.
It`s sad. That was 1988 and so little has changed in the US till now except that cold war is over and the `communist threat` can`t be used as an excuse any more. But of cause now we have the vicious `islamist terrorists`, I know... And the story goes on...
to bad the powers that be arnt going to give it up when they privitize iraqi oil who will stop it nobody when the prison state palestine is completed who will stop it not the american people but it wont be long till the fed leads our asses straight to collective bankruptcy and some real change goes down its coming
In this debate, Chomsky is to Perle as the Harlem Globetrotters are to the Washington Generals. Note that Chomsky deftly and rightly dismisses as irrevelent to the present debate his general views on what sort of political system would be the most viable and instead iterates the principle of the right of national self-determination. Moxzin: referring audiances to the documentary record would be a trick only if there proved repeatedly to be no such documentary record.
Surprising how downbeat Perle is throughout this debate. I think Perle is a better-trained 'classical' debater than Chomsky, just that Chomsky has a lot of specific things to say while Perle sticks to vagaries. I think its worth noting how many times Chomsky makes the rhetorical trick of saying "this is all heavily documented" but other than that, he wins hands down, which is a remarkable feat considering the radical things he is saying.
it is not a rhetorical trick to say this is heavily documented it is a rhetorical trick to say as Perle did i have not read those documents and i am sure none of you in the audience have either suggesting t don't really matter
It may be weak, but time has since shown that the strategy of "plausible deniability" works very well. You don't have to have a good argument, just stick to the party line and say "LIAR!"
Why is Perle unable to make any kind of convincing response?
His concluding statement attempts to counter Chomsky's very specific and well-defined arguments with a simple appeal to vague orthodoxies about the benevolence of American policymakers, strikes me as incredibly weak....
It's clear evidence of the same hubris that convinced him of the righteousness of the second Iraq war. What's more amazing is that his reputation suffered not a lick due to this trouncing while Chomsky is scoffed as an egghead leftist by most of the punditocracy.
great video thanks
distractionxx 1 month ago
love the video really good
thejameskan 1 month ago
some really good stuff here
shoppittsburghnow 1 month ago
Chomsky should have debated Huntington. He actually did once during the Vietnam war, but it wasn't interesting either.Can see it (and other debates) on his homepage.
dihydrohydroxycodein 3 months ago
You want to listen to some intelligent individuals, I would suggest Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Hayek or Rothbard. Perhaps Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, or Steven Levitt.
AroundSun 7 months ago
@fromis111 -- come on, admit it, you mastur-debater, you either (1) want hot looking girls, or (2) you're a brown-dirt cowboy who putts from the rough.
If (1), let me make this clear to you: pretty girls / women think you're an ugly, grotesquely obese, bald smelly pig. Uh, news flash: hot girls aren't attracted to Buckwheat - Vidal - Chomsky - Mailer - etc obsessed "intellectuals."
If (2), well, just be sure to clean the fecal bits off the tip of your pickle when you're done.
g17y5wb 8 months ago
Comment removed
zharkoo 10 months ago
He still does the only thing lefties can really do. Critique. Anyone can pull apart any idea, of course when coming up with superior alternatives they are fucked (or at least after they have implemented them and millions end up dead)
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun
His whole concluding statement in this video consisted of proposals for superior alternatives.
xknowledgeisfreex 10 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Chomsky's followers are usually anarchists anyway. They believe in voluntary collectivism not forced collectivism. That is fine by me. It leaves open the opportunity to have individual rights without the collective forcing you to embrace their ideas. Thing is, most of what Chomsky advocates can't be done without the state. That is why his followers are split, and half of them are loony. You can say "for the workers" all you want but it provides zero substance.
AroundSun 10 months ago
@AroundSun "most of what Chomsky advocates can't be done without the state. "
That's because most crimes Chomsky wants to see fixed are committed BY the state. Of course the agent responsible needs to be the one to right things. Chomsky, and the intelligent among his "followers" also understand quite well that the only thing standing in the way of libertarian socialism is the will of the masses. That's why he always says "we". He sees everyone as responsible for their society including himself.
SkyGuySunny 7 months ago
@SkyGuySunny He is not a libertarian. You have this idea that he is some limited government, private property free market libertarian. He is not. Just his term libertarian socialism is enough to tip you off that he is a double talking democrat. "Workers taking control of production" this means nothing. He is either talking about socialism (which he is) or he is talking about self entrepreneurship (which he is not), He is not intelligent and would never debate an economist.
AroundSun 7 months ago
@AroundSun What you think libertarian means only applies in America, but it is twisted from its original meaning. Libertarian socialism is not a contradiction in terms. Look up this video on Youtube: "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms" and then look up libertarian socialism in Wikipedia for an overview of the tradition.
SkyGuySunny 7 months ago
@SkyGuySunny I have, EVERY IDEA CONTRADICTS EACH OTHER and cancels each other out. If it is so plain to see, then you explain to me what libertarians socialism REALLY means and how it is in line with classic liberalism (jeffersonian liberalism). I have had people try to explain to me, but it is all very contradictory because most of what he wants done requires the state. His followers are confused and don't really agree on what he means either. They take it differently.
AroundSun 7 months ago
@AroundSun It is plain to see. The kinds of dehumanizing power structures and hierarchical economic relations present today are vastly different from those that existed at the time people like Smith and Jefferson were authoring the seminal works of classical liberalism. Taking their basic reasoning applied to today's power centers leads you to conclusions far less simplistic than "limiting state power," given that those centers of power and influence are now largely privatized.
Philfa 6 months ago
@Philfa privatized through state funds lol. that the problem. not private organizations who gain their revenues voluntarily. Chomsky is a double talking liberal drone
AroundSun 6 months ago
@AroundSun That's not the point. They're private entities with massive power and influence and no accountability to the public whatsoever. There's no double talk. If you'd pay any attention, you'd notice he gives the exact same assessment of "free market capitalism" (namely, that it doesn't exist) that you and your ilk offer for today's state-capitalist system. But the broader issue is that the character of the modern corporation resembles that of the "state" in Smith's time.
Philfa 6 months ago
@Philfa they dont have "massive power". you fall into every economic myth and fallacy ever devised. they only have the power the people give them. no public accountability? WRONG. The government has no public accountability. so are you saying that you want the state to force businesses to do things? yet you want there to be no state? chomsky drones are pathetic. bitch and moan and be envious of rich people that is all it is really about
AroundSun 6 months ago
@AroundSun Your constant use of the word "drone" is deeply ironic. Stay presumptuous and willfully ignorant; it suits you.
Philfa 6 months ago
@Philfa Bla Bla Bla Thats great. Since you can't counter argue my points and haven't refuted anything I will treat you like the economic illiterate you are. Good day Chomsky drone.
AroundSun 6 months ago
@Philfa maybe if you were better at name calling and using capitals you could beat his ironclad "arguments"
camelcamelcamel12345 6 months ago
@camelcamelcamel12345 Hahahahahaha, yeah, man. I've clearly got a lot of work to do.
Philfa 6 months ago
@SkyGuySunny Liberalism before Woodrow Wilson is the same as Libertarianism is today. Progressives and collectivists hijacked the word and Libertarians should take it back
AroundSun 7 months ago
Why would Perle even agree to this debate? He didn't even attempt to provide any argumentation. I have never seen someone so outclassed. Any student in the crowd would have faired better..
Jblenkin 1 year ago
does any one of you have hears the sound interference in this video ? if yes, why not re upload it .
smartti1970 1 year ago
Chomskys words will be used after his death to support the reigning power structure
brianmoran1973 1 year ago
I remember back in the early eighties on the old MacNeil Lehrer News Hour. They would have a panel of editors from newspapers from around the country. They did it once a week I think. One of the panelists was from a communist newspaper. I don't remember his name or the name of the paper. He always contributed a very rational point of view to the discussion. Why are we so afraid of dissent in this country? If communism is so terrible why are we afraid to hear about it. What are we afraid of?
gcahn2 1 year ago
Chomsky for King of the world. Seriously, what can we do to get this guy exposed to a greater audience. He wont live forever. He must be heard. The "right" is always saying that the media are liberal. But people like this are never aired. You never see communist, or socialist views represented on the media. The narrowness of allowed opinion on our airwaves is tantamount to totalitarianism.
gcahn2 1 year ago
We have only ourselves to blame for undocumented immigration into this country. Where else could they go. We effectively destroyed their chances of trading amongst theirselves. There is no flourishing trade amongst Latin American countries because we dis-allowed small, independent, entreprenurial activities that could have become active, cross border enterprises between all nations in the region.
gcahn2 1 year ago
@gcahn2 You have obviously never heard of Mercosul.
James2010May 1 year ago
@James2010May please enlighten me.
gcahn2 1 year ago
@James2010May Or Google.
Amunkriket 1 year ago
Chomsky's closing statements are almost beautiful. I wish every elected official would listen to them over and over again until he or she digested them. Perle is simply a commissar, who wants people not to look at the facts and documents, but rather just fall asleep in the cozy daydream that the American government is a selfless, generous, altruistic organization primarily concerned with the welfare of the disadvantaged.
ast453000 1 year ago 2
Richard Perle KNOWS that Noam Chomsky is 100% correct, but because of his obligations to his handlers, he MUST deny and reject such blatant and well-documented truth.
Evangelander 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
seymourg12 2 years ago
This is the sort of thorough thrashing that a power-wielding right-winger like Perle deserved. If only Bush Jr. and other Republican candidates for the presidency had had to face the music in this way. Unfortunately, our wonderfully free-and-open society makes such thoughtful confrontations very rare events. Instead, we are treated to painfully narrow debate shows that are tightly controlled by the two dominant political parties so that no undesirable thoughts or figures may enter.
fanniterrette 2 years ago 7
it didn't change Perle
from early on he tried calling Chomsky a commie, and after that made jokes - these are techniques so that you do not have to think about something
KentAllard 2 years ago 2
Richard Perle the most overrated comedian since Yakov Smirnoff.
mazacote71 2 years ago 3
I've little doubt that Perle is invested up to his dead eyes in the military industrial complex.
smujismuj 2 years ago 2
At this point Perle has nothing to say. I've never seen such a total defeat in a public debate on any topic.
t0kt0k 3 years ago 56
Yea this is ridiculous. I always wonder what his opponents think after they get destroyed. How can you still believe what you say after a debate like this?
Cosbibi 2 years ago 15
the truly sad thing is it sounds like he just shut down and stopped listening, like a child who puts his/her fingers in his/her ears and says "la, la, la". after doing that he probably does believe the same things.
terpdawg6924 2 years ago 6
@t0kt0k He was done halfway through. Completely insane.
holm81 7 months ago
Thanks so much for posting!
ARTAUDIOJOTA 3 years ago 3
In conclusion: Perle should spend more time reading documents instead of relying on silly rhetoric. The elite intelligentsia are an embarrassment.
dirtymics 3 years ago 7
True
ARTAUDIOJOTA 3 years ago 2
Perle knows what's going on. It's not like he's as oblivious and naive as he acted in this debate. His main point was that he hoped the audience would rely on what they hear in mainstream circles and not check up on things you might find in gov't docs like Professor Chomsky has.
hpslugga 2 years ago 5
excellent series, a HUGE thanks for posting bovall!
spartan2600 3 years ago 7
Chomsky's concluding remarks are imperishable: A plea for justice so powerfully arresting never before was uttered, and Truth seldom had a more august Defender. Before him all propagandists lie prostrate in abject submission.
Hearts stir at his eloquent cry for peace, minds rouse from apathy, and all the world harkens to his lips. When this Gentle Philosopher bids us farewell, who shall give us another Noam Chomsky?
PhilosopherSY 3 years ago 5
Quite simply, Chomsky absolutely reveals Perle for what he is: a tool employed by those in power to further disseminate and promote factually incorrect quasi-intellectual propoganda designed to defend the imperial nature of american international liberalism.
Perle loses
Anyone who watches this debate in its entirety can have no faith or belief in Perle or people like him. A U.S. run by Chomsky as President is almost to good to even dream of, so righteous, peaceful and honorable is this man.
acbla3 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky's argument is weak when it comes to the US promotion of international liberalism. He discounts economic progress in East Asia and Europe as being due to American dominance and control. But so what if US power depends, in these cases, on the growth of these counties? Isn't this a good thing? Would he rather have these countries look like N. Korea or the former Yugoslavia? -- because that was the alternative, absent our influence.
jakjonsun 3 years ago
You mean our key debt creditors, also known as the Trilateral Commission, to whom we've exported dollar hegemony, central banking, inflationary and big business oriented policies, weaken the lower/middle classes via the inflation tax and the shift of wealth, all of by which they have the capital to loan us so the US can continue to grow exponentially higher than them, maintaining the standing of the US in the world, then applying economic and political pressure to conform to our interests?
thomasst2 3 years ago
I think a verb would have helped that sentence.
jakjonsun 3 years ago
What you may not have seen, which Chomsky illustrates in the whole debate, and maybe easy for the US which does have to live within the resulting death and injustice, is US support and choice of undemocratic Governments for exploitation and control of resources to place political control on "allies" and "enemies," rather than allowing countries to arrive to a point similar to ours though self discovery and encouragement. The result has been increasing enmity, our eventual bankruptcy and collapse
thomasst2 3 years ago
I wonder if you believe it was "self discovery and encouragement" which brought Germany, Japan, and S. Korea to a point similar to ours.
jakjonsun 3 years ago
They will merely suffer the same fate (as they did) as we are now, as did the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire..pretty much any empire...millions of lives taken internally and externally in its rise, and corruption, bankruptcy and millions of lives taken and living in destitution in its fall. For stability overall, small government defending rights and nation and an informed, self reliant public is needed. The lesson has been taught for centuries, but has yet to be applied.
thomasst2 3 years ago
I kind've wished you replied with a good point to make the debate interesting. I really have no idea what you're trying to get across. I will say, though, that I agree with a philosophy which emphasizes a "small government defending rights and nation and an informed, self reliant public" The problem is the Nazis, Soviets, and now Islamic extremists don't share this view, and they have violently challenged countries which do.
jakjonsun 3 years ago
1) The proposed Islam/West religion clash is ridiculous. If you research history, starting from the 1900's when West/Middle East relations were favorable, you'll see there are legitimate reasons why the region (not the religion) hates us. Islam is a propaganda tool used on both sides, intending to create an "us vs them" situation. There were significant problems before religion was brought up. Those problems are what need to be addressed to fix things, not the rhetoric.
thomasst2 3 years ago 2
2)The Treaty of Versailles placed extremely unfair blame on Germany for WWI, given Germany's issue was with Serbia alone but was forced to pay reparations for all countries involved. The Nazi movement grew from the treaty, which led to the Third Reich and WWI essentially continued.
thomasst2 3 years ago 2
3) Russia has been marginalized and isolated by the West for centuries. Predictably they would take an Anti-West side (not exactly logical, but they are human). But after Western Europe and the US exacerbated and provided troops for a civil war right after the Bolshevik Revolution to topple the new government, the rift was complete. Incidentally, Classical Communism called for small government and more societal control. But instigated overthrows causes paranoia and pushes totalitarianism.
thomasst2 3 years ago 2
Lastly, Stalin completely perverted Communism on his own (views probably change after some intervention by you know who). Lenin tried to have him ousted before he died.
I'm not excusing all the behavior and each are not perfect. But when you look at the facts rather than repeated rhetoric, you see that prior intervention caused the problems in each case you mentioned. As for internal problems, each nation can figure it out on their own.
thomasst2 3 years ago 2
Incidentally, it is interesting also to note the (re)emergence of China as a global power, and to assess the circumstances which have allowed it.
It is unquestionable that those sections of the world which have most embraced the dream of Communism have done so in rebellion against capitalism, and are without exception regions or populaces which had benefited least from its expansion.
Lodatzor 2 years ago
It is therefore fairly clear that not only was Communism (or at least the propaganda of Marx's dream) a reaction of the oppressed internally, but also on a global level as well. In essence, the poorer nations have rebelled against the richer.
By the promotion (if not application) of Marx's ideas, the disillusioned and impoverished were persuaded to hand over total power to the State in order to return to relevance and power in the international community.
Lodatzor 2 years ago
Indeed, as you pointed out, it is precisely how Hitler managed to ride to power -- he promised Germany a Third Reich to restore their former glory.
In each of these cases the dominant drive was a rejection of capitalism and the Western powers that fostered it. The poorer, yet rather large nations (the global proletariat) decided they would simply take back (or attain) power and standing by force. A declaration of independence from the capitalist network of the West, if you will.
Lodatzor 2 years ago
That's not to say they were right, or correct, and it certainly does not excuse the atrocities committed by the various monsters who abused and used this process, but the very reason they were able to do so was because the people were ripe for a promise of national dignity and equality.
Of course (Germany aside), the swiftest success story in terms of military and political relevance was the USSR. As a result, the West pushed back, much as a large corporation does to new competition.
Lodatzor 2 years ago
Soviet and American rhetoric aside, the Cold War was, essentially, an arms race. It was the well established company versus the young (yet threatening) upstart, and so they both threw their cash at trying to bankrupt the other. Sadly for Russia (and probably very luckily for everyone else), they newcomer simply couldn't keep up in the end, and bankrupted itself effectively out of business. The market became wide open for monopoly by the victor.
Or did it?
Lodatzor 2 years ago
After all, while the two big guys were engaged in their advertising war (propaganda), their obvious attempts to undercut each other's business (alliances and treaties) and their refinement of product (the arms race and the promise of security it provides to their allies)... no-one paid much attention to the third guy who was slowly and carefully building a business model for the future.
Enter China, unravaged by the effects of a massive arms race. ;)
Lodatzor 2 years ago
So, really, modern geopolitics can be viewed almost in terms of the marketplace itself; many of the same drives and goals apply as countries and coalitions operate in much the same way as competing businesses.
The corporations have done a good job so far running the cooperatives out of the market, but because everyone took their eye off China, allowing it to grow and consolidate, will it prove to have the business model that will succeed in the long term?
Lodatzor 2 years ago
I guess we'll find out, but if so, if the commies win and dominate the marketplace of the future, it may be that the West has only itself to blame for inspiring such a widespread resentment of its product. It should have perhaps treated its consumers and workers a little better, instead of only caring for the profits of the executives.
Obviously this is just one long metaphor, but... isn't that how the marketplace actually works, according to the capitalists? ;)
Lodatzor 2 years ago
one big challenge for that view, and that view mostly sits well with me- an informed, active public with all the resources in their own hands to combat the problems that they face day to day-, is that for better or worse, we do have a global community at this point. and i think that, too is a good thing. how it's run is currently unfavorable, but it is a large factor to be concerned with. but there are a lot of great ideas for this, and more always coming.
intrepgun 3 years ago
Plus, with the Trilateral's current economic systems, it's governments and big business who benefit much more while the populations are largely oblivious to the true monetary chaos occurring around them. While families struggled to make mortgage payments and obtain a reasonable standard of living, guess who made $800 trillion in global credit derivatives in a system where money is created from thin air because current debt BECOMES money, founded on our future promises to pay taxes and loans?
thomasst2 3 years ago
That was one of the most one-sided debates I've ever heard. Perle probably regretted agreeing to take part.
Incidentally, you can find a transcript of this at chomsky[dot]info.
Particularly brilliant was Chomsky's apt distinction between recognizing a country's existence and recognizing its legitimacy (or right to exist), and his observation that the latter concept does not exist in international law.
euclidxxx 3 years ago 2
All in all, Perle was left fairly bamboozled, and could only reply with cheap rhetorical shots.
euclidxxx 3 years ago 4
Thanks for the post, it's nice to find these gems on youtube.
DrengenfraVA 3 years ago 4
18 videos in the series and I just watched all of them in a sitting and I come away with utmost respect for Noam Chomsky. I´ve read only one of his so many, many books. I intend to read more. Yeah, it was a smackdown. Perle has the intonation of an intellectual but his oration has no substance. And when he referred to comments by Chomsky as ¨garbage¨ the audience showed it knew the difference.
isolani 3 years ago 5
That was hilarious. Pearle revealed himself for the intellectually dishonest ass he is almost immediately and Chomsky laid the beat down on him for it. Given this utterly humiliating defeat for Pearle it is no wonder that Chomsky sees zero mainstream press coverage nowadays. What phenomenal intellectual prowess: Chomsky proves yet again why he is, "arguably, the most important intellectual alive".
JoeNietzsche 3 years ago 7
What a slaughter. Perle's rebuttles were the same character-slander each time. Chomsky would win probably 100-3, with 3 points just for the sheer confidence of QUOTING MACIAVELLI and expecting to win a debate thereafter.
efabri 3 years ago 5
This video deserves a rating of 10 stars!
Very Well said Mr. Chomsky!
gjsterp 3 years ago
We must ask these questions.
Way to go Mr. Chomsky.
gjsterp 3 years ago
Quotes are from PENTAGON PAPERS:
There were nine "wide-ranging explanations of US involvement given in the Vietnam war". The first two are "idealistic imperialism and economic imperialism".
Good luck with locating any ilk of this in mainstream media.
8Marx8 3 years ago
"I judge ideas on their utility and not on their "truth"..." Henry Kissinger in "American Foreign Policy". And notice he places "truth" in quotes exemplifying the contempt Kissinger always has for the concept of truth.
8Marx8 3 years ago
De Gualle in his memoirs:
"...American will to power cloaked itself in idealism."
8Marx8 3 years ago
The most refined shedders of blood have been almost always the most highly civilized gentlemen," to whom all the official terrorists "could not have held a candle.
8Marx8 3 years ago 2
What does it say about America when people like Perle can obtain top governmental jobs.
This is the fundamental flaw in American democracy.
johnnycon 3 years ago 3
Oh -here you are, Mr Perle; I believe this is your ass.
polymath7 3 years ago 2
Amazing how Perle slanders Chomsky for having a deeply cynical world-view, yet his neo-Con ilk do nothing but fear-monger.
johnnycon 3 years ago 2
Viva Chomsky!
scroogles 3 years ago 3
Point, game, set.
Thanks for posting this. It's a Chomsky tour de force.
futsal1958 3 years ago 2
Great debate. Thanks so much for posting.
mendali 4 years ago
Not really - Pretty damn one-sided if you ask me :D
efabri 3 years ago
haha yeah and Pr. Chomsky states that he's against violence and torture lol.
kabbinet 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I read Chomsky for 6 years, his technique is simple: you ignore the context of any given event, action by a government, successful economic system, etc. Then you attempt to either filibuster your opponent into silence, or just propagandize the same 5 or 10 events against your own country and make a good living from it.
tharnax 4 years ago
Name: Jerry
Age: 31
That good lucking, intelligent guy that intimidates the other guys (especially the short ones!).
Thats the funniest shit ive read in a while.
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago
You Jerry, are an idiot. Maybe a good looking one, but still an idiot.
woestijnvis07 4 years ago
Jesus. That wasn't a debate; that was a massacre.
rayb0b 4 years ago 31
What rayb0b said.
:)
tokotokotoko3 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Noam Chomsky is a Propagandist. He has the right to be one. He has three very prominent supporters:
1. Hugo Chavez. (would-be dictator)
2. Fidel Castro. (Communist dictator)
3. Osama Bin Laden. (Al-Qaeda fanatic)
Yesterday's failures: Trotskyites.
Today's new-and-improved failures: Chomskyites!
tharnax 4 years ago
Noam Chomsky is a human being who says what he thinks. He has the right to be one. He has four very prominent supporters:
1. Hugo Chavez. (Stands up to the US)
2. Fidel Castro. (Stands up to the US)
3. Osama Bin Laden. (CIA agent)
4. World Opinion. (He is the most quoted intellectual alive).
jpcortijo 4 years ago
3 losers, how impressive. He's only quoted by the Left, hardly 'World Opinion'.
tharnax 4 years ago
he meant his position of certain affairs are in line with most nations (in israel and palestine the rest of the world opposes the u.s. govt).
the polling on the iraq occupation is against the u.s. govt as well.
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago
Polling is a pretty weak science indeed, ask New Hampshire primary voters. The US government is democratic, therefore the opinion of Americans (reflected by their votes) is the only relevant opinion. If other countries dislike our government, we set up the UN so that they could bitch and complain all they wanted.
tharnax 4 years ago
I don't know how much world opinion agrees with Chomsky. I want to pick up in the next post on "the opinion of Americans (reflected by their votes)" and "the US government is democratic."
dobtoronto 4 years ago
Chomsky might reply that being democratic is not like an on/off switch - any government is democratic to the degree that its actions overlep with popular opinion - the will of we the people. How to measure that is an important question that I guess we haven't answered yet.
Regarding votes reflecting opinion, Chomsky would say that polling shows Americans would like universal health care, working toward peace with Iran, more 9/11 investigation, and neither party represents we the people's view
dobtoronto 4 years ago
That is completely untrue. You must not be from the US. If you were, you would know that polls and public opinion play a huge part in our daily lives and what we think is actually followed pretty carefully.
DesmondE 4 years ago
Indeed, extremely carefully. If Tharnax had any knowledge of history, for that matter, he would know that the public opinion and public relations industries have developed very, very sophisticated methods and ties to government in the last hundred years. Public opinion is not a matter of nebulous speculation in a society in which 1/6 of all dollars are spent on marketing.
Necrovore666 4 years ago
"followed pretty carefully"? You sir, are an idiot. If polling and public opinion were followed pretty closely, we would not be in Iraq, we would sign Kyoto, we would have universal healthcare, we would adhere to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to name only a few examples.
You are not qualified to speak on these issues. After joining youtube 2 years ago you have saved one video: Cop shoots himself in the leg. Why would you need to see that more than once? Unless you're twelve.
miracor 4 years ago
I can't believe how little Perle knows about American foreign policy.
Either that, or he is so deeply immoral that he is prepared to lie to defend these policies.
johnnycon 3 years ago
I strongly suspect it is the latter, johnnycon. Our munificent leader is, I think, just an astonishingly obtuse and oblivious baffoon. Cheney and Perle, on the other hand, both seem to be what one might call a functioning sociopath -someone who does not necessarily do anything overtly illegal or antisocial, but nonetheless has little or no capacity for empathy, nor any real willingness to modulate his behavior to accommodate the needs of others.
polymath7 3 years ago 2
Unquestionably the latter ... Richard Pearle is unable to provide as much detail because in doing so give the game away.
At the end of the day it is fantastic of Richard Pearl to be up for a debate. I hear these days hes calling for a withdrawl from Iraq ... or am I just hearing things?
TodMcInerney 3 years ago
Chomsky might reply that being democratic is not like an on/off switch - any government is democratic to the degree that its actions overlep with popular opinion - the will of we the people. How to measure that is an important question that I guess we haven't answered yet.
Regarding votes reflecting opinion, Chomsky would say that polling shows Americans would like universal health care, working toward peace with Iran, more 9/11 investigation, and neither party represents we the people's view
dobtoronto 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I used to be really disturbed by the far Left, they were always so strident, and so wrong. I thought that they might actually gain some real political power in the US. Then I realized with comfort and satisfaction that these Marxist lefties are almost never elected to any office in government. That's why the moderate left distances themselves from this nonsense; they want to be taken seriously and thereby elected to office.
tharnax 4 years ago
Yet another imperial idealogue gets his ass handed to him by Prof.Chomsky.
Sooo sweeet!
Webins 4 years ago 4
Chomsky's voice is a beacon of light in a dark world.
fruglescot 4 years ago 4
Chomsky is a human computer and i like it.
vicnameless 4 years ago 4
who won the debate ? it was so close.
gsmith64 4 years ago
Chomsky. What points did you think Perle made?
overmind25 4 years ago
he didn't make one point. chommsky utterly destroyed him. i've never seen such a lopsided debate. sarcasm doesn't come off so well when you attack is that of american nationalistic indoctrination. chomsky is the standard for american political thinking, unfortunately the few people have heard of him think "he's from neptune".
gsmith64 4 years ago
Nineteen years have passed since this was broadcast, and observe how the American public has since performed in national elections. Can there be any doubt that Richard Perle "won"?
sshuck 4 years ago
National elections are not determined on the basis of a single debate held in the late 80s. Especially debates that most of the American population would never have heard before. Chomsky won this easily.
On another note, less than 25% of the american population voted in the last election.
BBOYMONI 4 years ago
Wow, you're a genius.
sshuck 4 years ago
Yes, I am. But that is irrelevant to this debate. ;o)
BBOYMONI 4 years ago
In a sense you're not. But Perle and his ilk won through means which had nothing to do with their erudition, their ideals, their intellectual honesty, their humanitarianism...you get my point. A successful mugger or a rapist also has 'won' in a certain sense. Don't ask me to honour him for it.
gotgatGIT54 4 years ago
A successful mugger or rapist has also 'won' in exactly the same sense. Perle and his ilk won by that token. Their winning had nothing at all do with intellectual honesty, idealism, humanitarianism, scholarship or any of the other qualities Chomsky demonstrated in such abundant measure. All that Perle brought to the discussion was a rich and plummy voice, which soon descended to monosyllables. In straight speechifying terms, he was probably better. Fat lot of good it did him.
gotgatGIT54 4 years ago
Close debate? Are you kidding? Perle was a waste of time and space. He may as well not have been there. Chomsky could have done it all as a solo talk for all the difference Perle made. I don't know if there were flaws in Chomsky's command of facts - I seriously doubt it - but if there were, Perle was not the one to rebut them. He signed, sealed and delivered himself as an empty windbag devoid of substance.
gotgatGIT54 4 years ago
Are you kidding? Perle may as well have not been present. Chomsky could have carried the evening solo, for all the difference Perle made. Call that a debate? It was a cakewalk.
gotgatGIT54 4 years ago
Are you kidding? Close? Perle might as well have not been there. Chomsky could have carried the evening solo, for all the difference Perle made. It was a seminar, a one-man show with Perle playing the heckler with a fruity voice and a veneer of sophistication.
gotgatGIT54 4 years ago 5
Man. What a real treasure Chomsky is. I think of someone like C. Hithchens, who fancies himself a talented debater--and he really is--and yet next to Chomsky, he's like a dwarf. How rich that a warmonger like Perle had to take such an intense public humiliation. I love it. Bovall, this is brilliant.
terpis 4 years ago 4
It`s sad. That was 1988 and so little has changed in the US till now except that cold war is over and the `communist threat` can`t be used as an excuse any more. But of cause now we have the vicious `islamist terrorists`, I know... And the story goes on...
jakob0815 4 years ago
to bad the powers that be arnt going to give it up when they privitize iraqi oil who will stop it nobody when the prison state palestine is completed who will stop it not the american people but it wont be long till the fed leads our asses straight to collective bankruptcy and some real change goes down its coming
beavisisgood87 4 years ago
Notice how relevant this debate is to current events, even down to the talk of terrorism.
bluesenshi 4 years ago 2
1988 debate? Looks like the American people chose apathy. Alas.
imcgarrett 4 years ago 2
In this debate, Chomsky is to Perle as the Harlem Globetrotters are to the Washington Generals. Note that Chomsky deftly and rightly dismisses as irrevelent to the present debate his general views on what sort of political system would be the most viable and instead iterates the principle of the right of national self-determination. Moxzin: referring audiances to the documentary record would be a trick only if there proved repeatedly to be no such documentary record.
DanLackey 4 years ago
Surprising how downbeat Perle is throughout this debate. I think Perle is a better-trained 'classical' debater than Chomsky, just that Chomsky has a lot of specific things to say while Perle sticks to vagaries. I think its worth noting how many times Chomsky makes the rhetorical trick of saying "this is all heavily documented" but other than that, he wins hands down, which is a remarkable feat considering the radical things he is saying.
moxzin 4 years ago
it is not a rhetorical trick to say this is heavily documented it is a rhetorical trick to say as Perle did i have not read those documents and i am sure none of you in the audience have either suggesting t don't really matter
garwig888 4 years ago 2
It may be weak, but time has since shown that the strategy of "plausible deniability" works very well. You don't have to have a good argument, just stick to the party line and say "LIAR!"
macsen01 4 years ago
Why is Perle unable to make any kind of convincing response?
His concluding statement attempts to counter Chomsky's very specific and well-defined arguments with a simple appeal to vague orthodoxies about the benevolence of American policymakers, strikes me as incredibly weak....
tchicherine 4 years ago 2
i can't believe perle would even agree to a debate, let alone with chomsky... mind boggling.
bythewayof10 5 years ago
It's clear evidence of the same hubris that convinced him of the righteousness of the second Iraq war. What's more amazing is that his reputation suffered not a lick due to this trouncing while Chomsky is scoffed as an egghead leftist by most of the punditocracy.
annarboriter 4 years ago