Hegemony Or Survival

[Links234]

Has anyone here read this book? I have had it for a few months and am just starting to look at it. What did people think of it?

[juanpe]

could you give us more details on that book? I haven't heard about it... do you know the author? publisher? and so on? thanx...

[no yu begin wher i end]

It's by Noam Chomsky. I've heard of it, but haven't read it.

[toolboxnj]

He's a social-libertarian. Basically as statist as you can get.

 

States secure power in order to ensure security in the international system. Dominated by anarchy, the international system lacks a hierarchical presence to bridge the gaps between states. States, therefore, are encouraged to pursue a foreign policy of self-interest motivated by procuring more power than any state in the system. The state with the most power, relative to other states, is the hegemon; the hegemon sets the rules of the international system to their benefit since regional powers will challenge its status. An example of rule-setting is Pax Americana: collective security and economic universalism were proposals pushed by the United States at the end of World War II. The hegemon also acts as a stabilizer and global conflicts are less likely to occur in a uni-polar system than in one that is multi-polar. Of all the theories of international relations, hegemony and offensive realism offer the best explanation of how power and international politics are related to human nature and the concept of rational egoism.

 

Canada practices offensive realism in its foriegn policy, although it isn't a "foriegn policy" per se. You won't find any "offensive realists" in the state ministry, since it's a theory of international relations. Canada will not sacrifice for another state. For instance, its unwillingness to participate in the occupation of Iraq was purely selflish, as the US occupied on selfish reasons as well. So, Canada suffers from the same disease that every other country suffers from: a need for power.

[C-Bacon]

...anyways, yes the book is quite good. If your familiar with Chomsky's works, then some of what he says may not be new, but I found it a good start in reading up on more of America's past and present militaristic tendencies and the possible (apocalyptic) ramifications. It was my first Chomksy book, and no doubt i'll be reading more.

[toolboxnj]

America’s Dumbest Intellectual

 

For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence.

 

Not to mention, he denies that the denial of the Holocaust was not anti-Semitic.

 

But, Canadians love America-hating, so he's probably the author for you. For more intellectual honesty from the leftist point of view, I recommend Christopher Hitchens. I don't think anyone's been more discredited from the American Left and Right than Chomsky.

Edited December 3, 2004 by toolboxnj

[C-Bacon]

The claims that Chomsky denied the mass-slaughter by Khmer Rogue and the Holocaust are a fallacy and are points used by fanatical conservatives to discredit him. Some go even so far to say that Chomsky actually supported Pol Pot. Some of his quote were conveniently taken out of context from the overall theme of his works. He may have been guilty of perhaps being too skeptical of death toll at the time, but to say he dismissed them as merely a few thousand is a stretch. He rightfully referred to the crimes of the Khmer Rogue as one of the greatest mass genocides of our times, so he hardly acted as an apologist. I'm not sure where the non anti-semetic Holocaust theories came from though. Regardless, his works are well referenced and articulated, despite errors that are inevitably human, one shouldn't dismiss him so easily.

[S.E. Hardy]

I know of it, but haven't read it.