Jump to content

Hegemony Or Survival

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by toolboxnj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.